From iza at anr.org  Tue May 31 19:26:03 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:26:03 +0900
Subject: [governance] Organising for multiple forums
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035A3AD5AF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CA0ACF65.19571%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4DE4AA3A.1030107@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035A3AD5AF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=fvc81R6wy=rV3dGAEBdTjC0u0gg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Thank you Ian for raising the important points and suggestions.
As Jeremy wrote, I also share his observation of pros and cons,
Fouad's concern and Lee's suggestions all seem to be reasonable.

As the remaining IGC coordinator, I feel responsible to follow this up.
To change the whole IGC into a formalized structure/body may not
be feasible, but, as Jeremy says, not impossible if we all want so.

Though I am putting much of my time to the post-quake relief activities
I will do my best to this matter as well.

Since I could not raise enough funding even for my own travel to Geneva
CSTD and WSIS follow-up meetings, I agree that some sort of
funding for IGC will help strengthen our work and voices. Especially if
we are to bring more voices from the developing parts of the globe,
funding is the essential issue.

The WG of strategy and planning have not worked that well (yet).
Again, it's our own will that will activate these WGs.

best,

izumi

2011/6/1 Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>:
> Hi,
>
> First I have been among those urging caution and realism on what is possible with a loose list/caucus.  It's too easy to kill the spirit of the thing. Formalizing it into something that needs constant care and fundraising, when it lives among others with similar needs, is tricky.
>
> Still, coming up with more support and mechanisms for more coordinated voluntary support of IGC, possibly including a new non-profit org, may have merit for (re-re-reconsideration.)
>
> Supporting both Jeremy's and Fouad's points, if Consumers International and by extension the Ford Foundation are prepared to set an example and are offering to throw some $ or euros or yuan into an (initially only imaginary) pot, for an exploratory 12 month thing, bravo.  (Yeah I know Jeremy's timeline extends for 4 years, but at least as far as IGC is concerned, coming up with a 4 year plan before doing anything is - unlikely to reach consensus, based on our past experience around this topic.
>
> But if that one year effort does indeed help enable more focused coordination of IGC's overall effort across more international institutions, including funding a few trips for a few select igc list participants to rep igc (and I guess ci too) at one or another meeting where such representation and contributions would otherwise be lacking, sounds good to me.
>
> Meaning: if CI wishes to award an X$ fellowship to the next co-coordinator of IGC, great; if that next co-coordinator can dole out a few $ for travel, great.  If after those 2 things are in place there is further evidence of the benefits, and broader support for launch of a new org instead of 'just' a virtual org as IGC now is, well that may or may not happen, we shall see what the group wants.  But there is no need for an immediate formalization of IGC for CI and Ford to begin to put some $ where they wish. Imho.
>
> And congrats Jeremy! : )
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 4:43 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Organising for multiple forums
>
> On 31/05/11 15:01, Ian Peter wrote:
> So I do think we need to put some effort into changing our organisation to give it the capability to represent civil society on internet governance matters in multiple forums and through multiple voices.
>
> I do not believe that we could undertake this necessary task without at least a part time employee and some minimal travel for funding. In order to receive such funding, we may also need to have a more formal structure or at least an affiliation with a more formally constructed body able to provide the administrative functions on our behalf.
>
> This has been raised before (including by me [0]), and there has always been a reluctance to change.  This doesn't mean that I think there is no point in discussing it again; on the contrary.  I only haven't been pushing the discussion so far because I am "on the way out" as IGC coordinator, and I think the heavy lifting will have to be done by Izumi and the next coordinator.
>
> But if the IGC does decide to proceed along these lines, I may be able to help right away.  I put in a funding application on behalf of Consumers International to Ford Foundation, which was successful, for a project titled "Consumer Representation in the Information Society".  I'm attaching the relevant pages of the proposal.  It is possible that some of the funding could go towards contracting the next co-coordinator of the IGC on a very part-time basis.
>
> But if I have learned anything about the IGC, it's that you can't assume that changes of any sort will go down well with everyone, so I'm going to sit back at this point and see what the reaction is.
>
> [0] http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-12/msg00124.html
>
> --
>
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
> www.consumersinternational.org<http://www.consumersinternational.org/>
> Twitter @ConsumersInt<http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<
          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
                              www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue May  3 01:14:18 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 10:44:18 +0530
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
Message-ID: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>

Hi All

I wonder who all will attend the forthcoming open consultations and the 
MAG meeting (which, as on the last few occasions, is expected to be 
partly open). I myself am unable to attend because of the absence of 
funding support.

I see a few important new elements vis a vis the forthcoming meeting, 
which I bring to your collective attention

1) Unlike all earlier times, the MAG has not been re-constituted before 
the May meeting. I am not sure why, and what does this mean.

2) There is no funding support for civil society MAG members from 
developing countries, unlike earlier times, and I expect most to them to 
be unable to attend. This puts a huge question-mark on the legitimacy of 
the preparatory process, especially from civil society point of view. I 
think we should raise this issue. I expect the room to be filled by 
non-government actors from developed countries, and obviously the 
conversation will be determined and lead by them (which, because of a 
variety of factors, do often happen in any case; it will simply be, 
shall I say, much worse this time).  I have on numerous occasions asked 
the IGF secretariat for  data about additional participants that turn up 
in open MAG meeting. I have even sent reminders but never got  a 
response. So much for transparency.

3) Interestingly, for the first time, registration for open 
consultations and attending MAG meetings is a part of the registration 
for the WSIS forum. While I am all for convergences and doing a dialogue 
in common spaces with shared participants etc, I wonder if this new 
arrangement is entirely innocent, and if some may want to read something 
in this new development. I must mention here that one country at the WG 
on IGF improvements meeting strongly advocated for some kind of merger 
of the IGF process with the WSIS forum process.

Parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110503/ef0e1c34/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  Tue May  3 02:43:04 2011
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 12:13:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinbCYCmebspyJsvE+c3_E5W88h+6Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:44 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  Hi All
>
> I wonder who all will attend the forthcoming open consultations and the MAG
> meeting (which, as on the last few occasions, is expected to be partly
> open). I myself am unable to attend because of the absence of funding
> support.
>
> I see a few important new elements vis a vis the forthcoming meeting, which
> I bring to your collective attention
>
> 1) Unlike all earlier times, the MAG has not been re-constituted before the
> May meeting. I am not sure why, and what does this mean.
>
> 2) There is no funding support for civil society MAG members from
> developing countries, unlike earlier times, and I expect most to them to be
> unable to attend. This puts a huge question-mark on the legitimacy of the
> preparatory process, especially from civil society point of view. I think we
> should raise this issue. I expect the room to be filled by non-government
> actors from developed countries, and obviously the conversation will be
> determined and lead by them (which, because of a variety of factors, do
> often happen in any case; it will simply be, shall I say, much worse this
> time).  I have on numerous occasions asked the IGF secretariat for  data
> about additional participants that turn up in open MAG meeting. I have even
> sent reminders but never got  a response. So much for transparency.
>

I agree with Parminder on this. While it is not an issue for Government and
Business stakeholder groups, Civil Society participants depend on funding.
Absence of funding for Civil Society participants (from Neutral
sponsors) creates a definite imbalance. Something must be done about this
imbalance.


> 3) Interestingly, for the first time, registration for open consultations
> and attending MAG meetings is a part of the registration for the WSIS forum.
> While I am all for convergences and doing a dialogue in common spaces with
> shared participants etc, I wonder if this new arrangement is entirely
> innocent, and if some may want to read something in this new development. I
> must mention here that one country at the WG on IGF improvements meeting
> strongly advocated for some kind of merger of the IGF process with the WSIS
> forum process.
>

We should ask the IGF Secretariat to set up a registration page for MAG
meetings in the MAG section of the intgovforum.org web.

Sivasubramanian M

>
> Parminder
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110503/7cbadcfb/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  Tue May  3 02:54:44 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 12:24:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
Message-ID: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>

As many of you may know that France, in its role as chair of G8, plans a 
G8 meeting on the Internet later this month.

The French rep at the recent CoE meeting indicated that France is 
interested in some kind of a treaty or something. BTW, the US rep 
present also declared that President Obama plans to come up with some 
kind of framework on cyberspace....

Anyway, please read the only available information on the proposed G8 
Internet meeting which seems to be in the public domain. Gives a good 
indication where multistakeholderism is headed, and how is it 
conveniently used , especially the civil society actors, to legitimize 
processes that are grossly undemocratic, and are clear movements towards 
much larger political role of big business in our political affairs then 
one could evne think just a few years ago. especially see the parts of 
the quote below that is in bold.

from 
http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may 


/*Internet G8 to be held in Paris on 24-25 May Tuesday 19 April 2011 | 
19:43 CET */
The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May before 
the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived to generate 
debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector 
stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government, 
Maurice Levy, the chairman of advertising group Publicis, told Les 
Echos. Levy, who was tasked with organising the event by French 
president Nicolas Sarkozy, describes its overall objectives as fomenting 
economic growth and international collaboration. Talks will address the 
internet, digital technology and mobile communications. The first theme 
will be "internet and economic growth" and then "internet and people 
power" ("Pouvoir du citoyen"). Sessions will cover innovation, cloud 
computing, new financing, research efforts, stimulating 
entrepreneurship, protecting intellectual property, developing the 
mobile internet, medias and social networks. Attendees will also be 
urged to focus on the protection of rights and freedoms, personal data 
and minors, as well as the value chain and how to share it equitably. 
*Invitations have already been sent and a list of attendees will be 
published in one or two weeks, Levy said. He wants major actors such as 
Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Intel, Cisco, Apple, Nokia, Samsung and 
Alcatel to be represented, as well as major telecom operators such as 
Orange and ATT, emerging market representatives, smaller players and 
content producers, media companies, studios, music labels, publishing 
houses... The Internet G8 will be entirely funded by the private sector 
and will be open to the press. *

Quote ends.

So this is the multistakeholderism that developed country reps were so 
valiantly defending at various IGF meetings, including the Dec CSTD 
inter-sessional??? Can we, of the civil society, at least now wake up to 
what we are being co-opted into, and rethink our orientations and 
strategies to more specifically centre on global pulbic interest 
(Milton, if you have a better term, pl do suggest), and to representing 
the interests of those who are otherwise marginalized, rather then allow 
ourselves to be a convenient  vehicle for facilitating further 
entrenchment in power of those already most powerful.

First it was Verizon and Google who practically wrote the network 
neutrality law for the US, which because of the centrality of the US in 
global digital space and structure will likely seep into every country's 
systems. Now the global biggies will propose the ways and means of 
international cooperation regarding the Internet. This kind of thing was 
unthinkable a few years back. The digital is indeed the Trojan horse 
for  We indeed are shaping a new world, a most dreadful one for anyone 
who has any belief in democracy and justice.

We wrote to the UN asking for more spaces for civil society for the Dec 
consultations on enhanced cooperation. What about this G8 Internet meeting?

Parminder

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110503/98a267e0/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  Tue May  3 04:07:12 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 09:07:12 +0100
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <n5YgMfswe7vNFAxw@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4DBF8F2A.3060904 at itforchange.net>, at 10:44:18 on Tue, 3 May 
2011, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes

>1) Unlike all earlier times, the MAG has not been re-constituted before 
>the May meeting. I am not sure why, and what does this mean.

It's because the group advises the Chair, and there is no Chair.

Over the last six months there has been speculation about the process 
for selecting a new Chair and even whether that new Chair (after the 
CSTD's improvement meetings) would require a new MAG, or might it be 
something closer to a "multi-stakeholder bureau".

Now that the CSTD's improvement committee's process seems stalled (they 
want to take a second year to deliberate), this could go on for a while.

On a related note, normally by now there would be a volunteer country 
for IGF-2012 standing in the wings. I wonder when that part of the 
process will resume?

>2) There is no funding support for civil society MAG members from 
>developing countries, unlike earlier times, and I expect most to them 
>to be unable to attend. This puts a huge question-mark on the 
>legitimacy of the preparatory process, especially from civil society 
>point of view. I think we should raise this issue. I expect the room to 
>be filled by non-government actors from developed countries, and 
>obviously the conversation will be determined and lead by them (which, 
>because of a variety of factors, do often happen in any case; it will 
>simply be, shall I say, much worse this time). 

The last two May meetings, the attendance was pretty much confined to 
workshop organisers, and the only real business was fine-tuning the 
timetable and encouraging people to do a little face-to-face workshop 
merging.

[I'm not attached to any particular stakeholder entity at the moment, 
and therefore I'm am available to go and plead the cause for any groups 
who have a more difficult travel scenario than myself. I've worked with 
all stakeholders at one time or another, and I might be extra useful for 
any first-time workshop organisers this year.]

>I have on numerous occasions asked the IGF secretariat for  data about 
>additional participants that turn up in open MAG meeting. I have even 
>sent reminders but never got  a response. So much for transparency.

The number of people attending the Open Consultation has dwindled over 
the years, and the attendee list is published. While some of the MAG do 
not attend the Open Consultation, most of the others there for Day 1 
will also turn up as observers at the MAG.

There's no separated registration or badging for the two days, hence an 
assumption that it's more like one two-day meeting rather than two 
separately documented 1-day meetings.

>3) Interestingly, for the first time, registration for open 
>consultations and attending MAG meetings is a part of the registration 
>for the WSIS forum. While I am all for convergences and doing a 
>dialogue in common spaces with shared participants etc, I wonder if 
>this new arrangement is entirely innocent, and if some may want to read 
>something in this new development.

I think it's simply because of the off-site location (similar to when 
the EBU was used in 2009). May 2007 was also run using WSIS-week 
registration and badging, the meeting being at the ITU building. The 
dates are usually picked to align, and thereby reduce the travel 
commitments for attendees of both sets of meetings.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  3 04:51:37 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 09:51:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4DBFA6B4.7090503 at itforchange.net>, at 12:24:44 on Tue, 3 May 
2011, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes

>We wrote to the UN asking for more spaces for civil society for the Dec 
>consultations on enhanced cooperation. What about this G8 Internet 
>meeting?

The G8's nothing to do with the UN, nor is there an assumption that 
rules of multistakeholderism can be imposed from one to the other. 
Indeed, many would regard it as a positive feature that organisations 
can have their own working methods independent from the UN.

 > This kind of thing was unthinkable a few years back.

It's very appropriate that such a G8 meeting emerges now, because a 
previous G8 cybersecurity initiative[1], which got up to speed with a 
meeting in Paris in May 2000 and concluded with a meeting in Tokyo on 
May 2001, was very soon stalled[2] when law enforcement's resources were 
diverted away from the Internet and towards terrorism after 9/11.

But the ground rules were written all that time ago, and not much has 
changed since.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/i_crime/high_tec/conf0105-3.html

[1] Full title: "Government/Industry Dialogue on Safety and Confidence
                   in Cyberspace"

[2] One of the few identifiable results of the work was the EU's Data
      Retention Directive.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue May  3 07:03:22 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 07:03:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>,<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Parminder,

If I recall correctly G7 meetings as far back as...95? 93? 97 at latest...had similar themes, albeit with phraseology then around the more inclusive 'information society.' 

OK in my recollection there was a broader less commercial agenda back then than the 2011 version, back in the day, with cs folks more likely prominent on the agenda.

But point is high level showcase schmooze-athons have been going on at or near this level for quite some time, related to Internet.

If one for whatever reason gets close to being part of agenda - it is a big pain and probably not worth cost to any cs org. In my experience from walking away from getting sucked into such things in past.

Except for largest/wealthiest cs orgs, it is very hard to play at this level.

Maybe, instead of worrying about sales pitches from corporates at G7, you could...work the system towards a more cs-friendly G-20 showcase? 

(I suspect you may know people who people who...could make it so.) Frankly if global cs were to play, it would more likely be worth our bother to aim for a 2012 G20 meeting.

 Though Paris in spring is always pleasant. But G20 is where the markets and - policy action - is these days anyways.

Lee


________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:51 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

In message <4DBFA6B4.7090503 at itforchange.net>, at 12:24:44 on Tue, 3 May
2011, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes

>We wrote to the UN asking for more spaces for civil society for the Dec
>consultations on enhanced cooperation. What about this G8 Internet
>meeting?

The G8's nothing to do with the UN, nor is there an assumption that
rules of multistakeholderism can be imposed from one to the other.
Indeed, many would regard it as a positive feature that organisations
can have their own working methods independent from the UN.

 > This kind of thing was unthinkable a few years back.

It's very appropriate that such a G8 meeting emerges now, because a
previous G8 cybersecurity initiative[1], which got up to speed with a
meeting in Paris in May 2000 and concluded with a meeting in Tokyo on
May 2001, was very soon stalled[2] when law enforcement's resources were
diverted away from the Internet and towards terrorism after 9/11.

But the ground rules were written all that time ago, and not much has
changed since.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/i_crime/high_tec/conf0105-3.html

[1] Full title: "Government/Industry Dialogue on Safety and Confidence
                   in Cyberspace"

[2] One of the few identifiable results of the work was the EU's Data
      Retention Directive.
--
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  3 07:50:38 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 17:20:38 +0530
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>,<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>

Hi Lee

On Tuesday 03 May 2011 04:33 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> If I recall correctly G7 meetings as far back as...95? 93? 97 at latest...had similar themes, albeit with phraseology then around the more inclusive 'information society.'
Yes, even the idea of ICTD was born at G 8 meetings, wrapped in very 
alien ideologies, and it has never recovered from this accident of its 
birth. We in devleoping countries know how we suffer this fact, and how 
ICTD consequently has remained distanced from traditional development 
practice. As a result, the best opportunities of ICTs for development 
have not been able to be realized.

> OK in my recollection there was a broader less commercial agenda back then than the 2011 version, back in the day, with cs folks more likely prominent on the agenda.
That is not  a small difference. If civil society participation, or to 
use a more fashionable term, multistakeholderism, is being pushed back 
in the plurilateral meetings (with global impact), why is civil society 
quite. Why does it reserve all its - instinctive and intense - 
opposition and venom for UN processes, which, whatever else may be said 
about them, are certainly better than those of these rich country clubs.

Why there is such a powerful rhetoric around the slogan of 'UN (read 
developing country govs) take over of the Internet' and none about 'rich 
countries takeover of the Internet in partnership with mega-corporates', 
which is where we surely seem to be headed. How some discourses are 
manufactured so easily, and others are simply not allowed to 
precipitate. While the IG civil society is largely organized around 'UN 
take over of the Internet' slogan/ banner and it is so difficult to 
build civil society mass around addressing  the other, now much larger, 
danger?
> But point is high level showcase schmooze-athons have been going on at or near this level for quite some time, related to Internet.
>
> If one for whatever reason gets close to being part of agenda - it is a big pain and probably not worth cost to any cs org. In my experience from walking away from getting sucked into such things in past.
>
> Except for largest/wealthiest cs orgs, it is very hard to play at this level.
 From what you are saying, can we agree then that the UN processes, 
where at least some openings are always there for relatively outsider 
groups to participate, are a much better bet for us, I mean the global 
IG civil society.  But can you take the UN system haters among the CS 
along on this. Such hatred may still be ok if the same people were not 
so so friendly with the government reps of these rich countries, and not 
only that, together they make such elaborate show of die hard support 
for multistakeholderism in UN forums, and disdain developing country 
governments, or even civil society actors who may be more policy 
institutions oriented.

Can we, in the above background, safely say that the multistakeholder 
show of the developed countires at UN is simply a ruse - and  a quite 
successful one till date - to resist inclusion of developing countries 
in any global govenrance regimes for the Internet? Whereby, we must then 
also question the role IG civil society has, willy nilly, been playing 
in this global 'game'. I suggest this is time for such intense 
retrospection by the IGC and other civil society actors.

Some of the above posers may be deliberatively provocative, but we need 
to ask some hard questions from ourselves.

Parminder
> Maybe, instead of worrying about sales pitches from corporates at G7, you could...work the system towards a more cs-friendly G-20 showcase?
>
> (I suspect you may know people who people who...could make it so.) Frankly if global cs were to play, it would more likely be worth our bother to aim for a 2012 G20 meeting.
>
>   Though Paris in spring is always pleasant. But G20 is where the markets and - policy action - is these days anyways.
>
> Lee
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:51 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
>
> In message<4DBFA6B4.7090503 at itforchange.net>, at 12:24:44 on Tue, 3 May
> 2011, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  writes
>
>> We wrote to the UN asking for more spaces for civil society for the Dec
>> consultations on enhanced cooperation. What about this G8 Internet
>> meeting?
> The G8's nothing to do with the UN, nor is there an assumption that
> rules of multistakeholderism can be imposed from one to the other.
> Indeed, many would regard it as a positive feature that organisations
> can have their own working methods independent from the UN.
>
>   >  This kind of thing was unthinkable a few years back.
>
> It's very appropriate that such a G8 meeting emerges now, because a
> previous G8 cybersecurity initiative[1], which got up to speed with a
> meeting in Paris in May 2000 and concluded with a meeting in Tokyo on
> May 2001, was very soon stalled[2] when law enforcement's resources were
> diverted away from the Internet and towards terrorism after 9/11.
>
> But the ground rules were written all that time ago, and not much has
> changed since.
>
> http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/i_crime/high_tec/conf0105-3.html
>
> [1] Full title: "Government/Industry Dialogue on Safety and Confidence
>                     in Cyberspace"
>
> [2] One of the few identifiable results of the work was the EU's Data
>        Retention Directive.
> --
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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/20110503/81aef4e9/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 May  3 08:13:38 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 15:13:38 +0300
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=cuH0QcnWYtW91cbUgrDEE9PsBpQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:50 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Hi Lee
>
<snip>

> From what you are saying, can we agree then that the UN processes, where at
> least some openings are always there for relatively outsider groups to
> participate, are a much better bet for us, I mean the global IG civil
> society.

Why is it a choice between one (UN) or or the other (G8)?

CS should embrace its current opportunities to participate in global
IG more than we do currently.  There are existing processes which give
us a voice, why would we want to choose between 2 fora that offer us
little to no voice?




  But can you take the UN system haters among the CS along on this.
> Such hatred may still be ok if the same people were not so so friendly with
> the government reps of these rich countries, and not only that, together
> they make such elaborate show of die hard support for multistakeholderism in
> UN forums, and disdain developing country governments, or even civil society
> actors who may be more policy institutions oriented.
>
> Can we, in the above background, safely say that the multistakeholder show
> of the developed countires at UN is simply a ruse - and  a quite successful
> one till date - to resist inclusion of developing countries in any global
> govenrance regimes for the Internet?


No, we can't safely say that at all.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue May  3 10:11:24 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 02:11:24 +1200
Subject: [governance] Review of ITU Resolutions
Message-ID: <BANLkTinfeNZ8CzSDZLbcg6Fafz_m5DnNZA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear List,

I am wondering whether there will be submissions from the IGF to ITU
in relation to the review of ITU resolutions (especially those that
affect key issues identified in past and present IGFs discussions)
which are scheduled to occur in 2012 in Australia.

Kind 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


From marie.georges at noos.fr  Tue May  3 10:18:31 2011
From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 16:18:31 +0200
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>,<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <D78870F3-85AC-4586-8C21-34F77B254C39@noos.fr>

Hi 
Just for information: 

Here enclosed the Declaration of the G7 of 1995 (sorry,in French,  that is the only version I finally found after weeks. The FIRST G7 on Internet society,( but ministerial),   that the European commission was mandated to organized in Brussels: Yes more inclusive...and  time of the adoption of the Directive on Data privacy....  

In France President Sarkosy 's vision for the G8 is Growth (by/for big northern enterprises) and "civilizing internet", meaning for many other persons "internet to be colonized" !!!!!  Is that why  it does not include   "civil society "  (terms he says he does not like) and why it is not a G20, ???? for the time beeing, ...

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To 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: 01 G7 1995 Conclusions de la conf?rence interminist?rielle du G7 sur la soci?t? de l?information organis?e ? Bruxelles les 25.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 71680 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110503/1b02a29b/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------




Le 3 mai 2011 à 13:03, Lee W McKnight a écrit :

> Parminder,
> 
> If I recall correctly G7 meetings as far back as...95? 93? 97 at latest...had similar themes, albeit with phraseology then around the more inclusive 'information society.' 
> 
> OK in my recollection there was a broader less commercial agenda back then than the 2011 version, back in the day, with cs folks more likely prominent on the agenda.
> 
> But point is high level showcase schmooze-athons have been going on at or near this level for quite some time, related to Internet.
> 
> If one for whatever reason gets close to being part of agenda - it is a big pain and probably not worth cost to any cs org. In my experience from walking away from getting sucked into such things in past.
> 
> Except for largest/wealthiest cs orgs, it is very hard to play at this level.
> 
> Maybe, instead of worrying about sales pitches from corporates at G7, you could...work the system towards a more cs-friendly G-20 showcase? 
> 
> (I suspect you may know people who people who...could make it so.) Frankly if global cs were to play, it would more likely be worth our bother to aim for a 2012 G20 meeting.
> 
> Though Paris in spring is always pleasant. But G20 is where the markets and - policy action - is these days anyways.
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:51 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
> 
> In message <4DBFA6B4.7090503 at itforchange.net>, at 12:24:44 on Tue, 3 May
> 2011, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
> 
>> We wrote to the UN asking for more spaces for civil society for the Dec
>> consultations on enhanced cooperation. What about this G8 Internet
>> meeting?
> 
> The G8's nothing to do with the UN, nor is there an assumption that
> rules of multistakeholderism can be imposed from one to the other.
> Indeed, many would regard it as a positive feature that organisations
> can have their own working methods independent from the UN.
> 
>> This kind of thing was unthinkable a few years back.
> 
> It's very appropriate that such a G8 meeting emerges now, because a
> previous G8 cybersecurity initiative[1], which got up to speed with a
> meeting in Paris in May 2000 and concluded with a meeting in Tokyo on
> May 2001, was very soon stalled[2] when law enforcement's resources were
> diverted away from the Internet and towards terrorism after 9/11.
> 
> But the ground rules were written all that time ago, and not much has
> changed since.
> 
> http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/i_crime/high_tec/conf0105-3.html
> 
> [1] Full title: "Government/Industry Dialogue on Safety and Confidence
>                   in Cyberspace"
> 
> [2] One of the few identifiable results of the work was the EU's Data
>      Retention Directive.
> --
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Tue May  3 11:04:45 2011
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 17:04:45 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <29462422.15935.1304435085586.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g09>

Dear Parminder

i do share your serious concerns as well as your standpoints, particularly on this recurrent issue of financing the effective participation of CS representatives from DCs, which is one of the most regretable failures of the WSIS. IMHO this causes an unbearable distortion in CS representation and makes "MSHism" totally meaningless. 

That's why the WSIS follow-up isn't but a repetitive series of self-celebrating and self-promoting sessions rather than a real open discussion and debate on actual issues and a common search of suitable solutions ! In fact this process is far from being a Forum : take just a look on this year's, programme with its "high level (?) sessions" !

However, I'll regret your absence during this week in Geneva, both at a personal and a collective standpoint. I do hope that some DCs are present at least through their diaspora. but this necessitates a collaborative work being done ahead of the Forum. Not obvious ...

Let me just add that the dissolution of IGF in this WSIS process without consistency, spirit and goal, means a "1st class burial" for the IGF, as well as for the Financing Mechanisms for WSIS goals in DCs, the second hot potatoe of the WSIS, that I'm asking for since the first prepcoms of the Tunis phase. With the success you can check in reading the 2011 Forum programme ...

With my friendliest greetings ... and regrets

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT - France 



> Message du 03/05/11 07:15
> De : "parminder" 
> A : "governance at lists.cpsr.org" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
> 
> Hi All
> 
> I wonder who all will attend the forthcoming open consultations and the MAG meeting (which, as on the last few occasions, is expected to be partly open). I myself am unable to attend because of the absence of funding support. 
> 
> I see a few important new elements vis a vis the forthcoming meeting, which I bring to your collective attention
> 
> 1) Unlike all earlier times, the MAG has not been re-constituted before the May meeting. I am not sure why, and what does this mean.
> 
> 2) There is no funding support for civil society MAG members from developing countries, unlike earlier times, and I expect most to them to be unable to attend. This puts a huge question-mark on the legitimacy of the preparatory process, especially from civil society point of view. I think we should raise this issue. I expect the room to be filled by non-government actors from developed countries, and obviously the conversation will be determined and lead by them (which, because of a variety of factors, do often happen in any case; it will simply be, shall I say, much worse this time).  I have on numerous occasions asked the IGF secretariat for  data about additional participants that turn up in open MAG meeting. I have even sent reminders but never got  a response. So much for transparency. 
> 
> 3) Interestingly, for the first time, registration for open consultations and attending MAG meetings is a part of the registration for the WSIS forum. While I am all for convergences and doing a dialogue in common spaces with shared participants etc, I wonder if this new arrangement is entirely innocent, and if some may want to read something in this new development. I must mention here that one country at the WG on IGF improvements meeting strongly advocated for some kind of merger of the IGF process with the WSIS forum process. 
> 
> Parminder 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110503/f2f53616/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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Tue May  3 11:16:37 2011
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 11:16:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] Nominations open 2011 Communication for Social Change
 Awards / UQ CCSC
Message-ID: <p0620073ec9e476f5a779@[10.0.1.6]>

>X-Originating-IP: [202.12.29.199]
>Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:59:20 +1000
>From: Sylvia Cadena <sylvia at apnic.net>
>Reply-To: sylvia at apnic.net
>Organization: APNIC
>User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: grantees-2010 at isif.asia, grantees-2009 at isif.asia
>Subject: Your help to spread the word: Nominations open 2011 Communication
>  for Social Change Awards / UQ CCSC
>
>Hi everybody,
>
>The Centre for Communication and Social Change, at the University of
>Queensland, has opened this year's applications for the Communication
>for Social Change Awards. This is the global award, and I believe 
>that you and your organizations are perfect candidates, as the award 
>was established to recognise those that have demonstrated 
>extraordinary commitment to using communication to transform and 
>empower marginalised communities. If you are not interested to 
>nominate your self or your organization for the award, please help 
>us to spread the word about it among your colleagues and networks.
>
>The award consists of a $AUD 2500 prize and a travel package to
>participate in the Award Ceremony in Australia. The visit will also be
>used to promote the impact that communication projects can have in
>development efforts. Each year two awards will be presented: one to an
>individual and one to an organisation/institution. Those awarded can 
>be either practitioners/activists working the field,
>or theorists.
>
>Please see the information sheet attached or visit for more information:
>http://www.uq.edu.au/ccsc/how-to-apply. For further information 
>please contact Jessica London at j.london at uq.edu.au or call on (+61 
>7) 3346 3092.
>
>Applications close *Friday the 24th of June 2011*
>
>All the best,
>
>Sylvia
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>Sylvia Cadena                                   |  Project Officer
>ISIF Information Society Innovation Fund        |  sylvia at isif.asia
>APNIC Resource Quality Assurance                |  sylvia at apnic.net
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>sip: sylvia at voip.apnic.net                      |  skype: sylviacadena
>Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) |  Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
>PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia  |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199
>6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD          |  http://www.apnic.net
>____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To 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: " ; modification-date="Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:22:22 -0400
Type: application/applefile
Size: 141 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110503/91910178/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2011 Communication and Soci.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 493772 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110503/91910178/attachment.pdf>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue May  3 11:23:40 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 11:23:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>,<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B25@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

My - touche - to yours:
________________________________________

Yes, even the idea of ICTD was born at G 8 meetings, wrapped in very alien ideologies, and it has never recovered from this accident of its birth. We in devleoping countries know how we suffer this fact, and how ICTD consequently has remained distanced from traditional development practice. As a result, the best opportunities of ICTs for development have not been able to be realized.
<
Lee2: I confess I wasn't party to most of the G8 ICT4D phase. But again: that's history pre 2008-9 'global recession' - when Brazil, India, China etc skipped past cliff US economy went over (and Iceland; sad company for mighty US; no offense to Icelandic friends.)

I tell my students there has been a significant power shift from G8 to G20; so like I say if you pull it off, I'll come to a G20 thing.  But G8 was a waste of time 15 years ago and hasn't changed much since then imho.  On rare occasions something happens - G8 ICT4D agenda launch is in that category, for good or ill. Usually it is just a big photo op.  The cynic in me suspects this is more about French domestic politics than world politics; Sarkozy wants to summon Facebook etc, for his own photo ops. Fine but I can't afford to visit -just to be out of the picture : ). 
<
OK in my recollection there was a broader less commercial agenda back then than the 2011 version, back in the day, with cs folks more likely prominent on the agenda.

That is not  a small difference. If civil society participation, or to use a more fashionable term, multistakeholderism, is being pushed back in the plurilateral meetings (with global impact), why is civil society quite. Why does it reserve all its - instinctive and intense - opposition and venom for UN processes, which, whatever else may be said about them, are certainly better than those of these rich country clubs.
Why there is such a powerful rhetoric around the slogan of 'UN (read developing country govs) take over of the Internet' and none about 'rich countries takeover of the Internet in partnership with mega-corporates', which is where we surely seem to be headed. How some discourses are manufactured so easily, and others are simply not allowed to precipitate. While the IG civil society is largely organized around 'UN take over of the Internet' slogan/ banner and it is so difficult to build civil society mass around addressing  the other, now much larger, danger?

<
Lee2: I agree transition from non-commercial (albeit US DOD then NSF funded) core Internet infrastructure to Internet of today remains a challenge for cs. And mega-corporates own and work the media.  Still personally, I tuned out of G8 when it was 7, having found engagement a waste of time. Even back then it was a game just for deepest pockets, so you are right in sense that high-level lobbying and corporate - political schmoozing happens there.  If one for whatever reason one gets close to being part of agenda - it is a big pain and probably not worth cost to any cs org. In my experience from walking away from getting sucked into such things in past. While managing to antagonize....ok never mind, let's leave my past screw-ups in past shall we...

>>

Except for largest/wealthiest cs orgs, it is very hard to play at this level.

>From what you are saying, can we agree then that the UN processes, where at least some openings are always there for relatively outsider groups to participate, are a much better bet for us, I mean the global IG civil society.  But can you take the UN system haters among the CS along on this. Such hatred may still be ok if the same people were not so so friendly with the government reps of these rich countries, and not only that, together they make such elaborate show of die hard support for multistakeholderism in UN forums, and disdain developing country governments, or even civil society actors who may be more policy institutions oriented.

Can we, in the above background, safely say that the multistakeholder show of the developed countires at UN is simply a ruse - and  a quite successful one till date - to resist inclusion of developing countries in any global govenrance regimes for the Internet? Whereby, we must then also question the role IG civil society has, willy nilly, been playing in this global 'game'. I suggest this is time for such intense retrospection by the IGC and other civil society actors.

Some of the above posers may be deliberatively provocative, but we need to ask some hard questions from ourselves.

<Lee2:
All good points; I certainly agree UN is better and more open to cs and developing countries than G8.  I agree with you that it is better cs strategy to help build/prop IGF up than get distracted by G8 summits. But I am serious about suggesting some targetted effort to do something similar, obviously more focused on emerging/developing - nation interests, with G20 as co-conspirators  to highlight global power shift and frame discussions around approaches of interest to - G20 nations; in further change in Internet governance arrangements. A group in which China, India, and Brazil especially have a lot of clout to set agenda. South Africa and Mandela trump all 'Internet' photo ops; so steer a G20 there, and talk up Internet. Seriously.

Unfortunately, in playing media/attracting hits 101, the 'UN takes over the Internet' is in the 'aliens invade earth' category  of headline - it always works, even if most readers are skeptical of veracity.  

So it will continue to be used to grab headlines and for rhetorical flourish. 

And a G20 thing would set off a lot of those types of headlines, even if needing to explain that G20....is a proxy for UN? Not sure how it will be spun, but that is my guess.

More significantly, inside UN and at emergent interfaces to -in McTim's phrase - things that matter to 'real' Internet- processes, like the recent CSTD working group, there will continue to be flare-ups if people closer to the plumbing violate the formulaic but also practically significant multistakeholder input models for policymaking around Internet governance matters.   Though I do agree the level of alarm over things like the India proposal when first released were way over the top, which is why I joined in encouraging discussion at next IGF.

So now Parminder permit the prof to - hypothesize (and I have said similar things before and been laughed off the stage):

One could think of IGF as a people's parliament - on the order of the Euro parliament, ie of limited clout; where noise can be made.  Euro parliament was treated as complete joke and afterthought for first decade or so...now it is...ok not taken that seriously but does occasionally, reflect general popular will in contrast to European Commission bureaucracy.  Maybe not a terribly glamorous future for IGF, especially since noone is elected, but still significant in its own humble way.  

The - executive branch/administrative agencies/european commission(s) of the global Internet - eg ICANN, RIRs, etc, have the power to do things, while IGF can just make - a little - noise and shed light on an issue. If not MAG stifled.

So I seriously see a role for our multistakeholder processes of true significance on global scale.

While agreeing that it is depressignly difficult and slow to evolve from the nation-state model - and help the UN take over the Internet; ) (KIDDING)  

Seriously, as IGF grows into a second phase, it is already more where the action is in Internet governance than G8. Since Heads of State mainly want to be shown in pictures with other heads of state, or Marc Zuckerberg, and not talk about the plumbing of the global economy. ( For example, wanna bet there will be no mention of G8 leaders supporting ICANN's .XXX decision - in G8's final declaration? ; )    Multilingual domain names, now that is more politically correct.  W3C and Sir Tim Berners-Lee are also good for photo ops...if it was me managing the thing.   Phrase network neutrality or open Internet could sneak into declaration, mainly to show world leaders are not clueless about net. 

Anyway, I agree with your observation that there has been no significant change in extant - Internet governance arrangements. And there is more to do. So get me a ticket to a Internet G20 meeting, 2012, and a photo op with Mandela, and let's make some real noise ; ).  

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

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

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


From nb at bollow.ch  Wed May  4 06:04:46 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed,  4 May 2011 12:04:46 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> (message from parminder on
	Tue, 03 May 2011 17:20:38 +0530)
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>,<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 May 2011 04:33 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> > If I recall correctly G7 meetings as far back as...95? 93? 97 at
> latest...had similar themes, albeit with phraseology then around the
> more inclusive 'information society.'
> Yes, even the idea of ICTD was born at G 8 meetings, wrapped in very 
> alien ideologies, and it has never recovered from this accident of its 
> birth. We in devleoping countries know how we suffer this fact, and how 
> ICTD consequently has remained distanced from traditional development 
> practice. As a result, the best opportunities of ICTs for development 
> have not been able to be realized.

Hi Parminder
Is there a quotable source with regard to the above-mentioned issue?
(It isn't clear yet what the "IG map" that I'm planning to work on
will contain, but I tend to think that it should contain besides
positive information about the impact of various IG-related fora also
references to such criticism.)

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

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed May  4 07:04:20 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 16:34:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>,<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>

'

On Wednesday 04 May 2011 03:34 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>> On Tuesday 03 May 2011 04:33 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>> If I recall correctly G7 meetings as far back as...95? 93? 97 at
>> latest...had similar themes, albeit with phraseology then around the
>> more inclusive 'information society.'
>> Yes, even the idea of ICTD was born at G 8 meetings, wrapped in very
>> alien ideologies, and it has never recovered from this accident of its
>> birth. We in devleoping countries know how we suffer this fact, and how
>> ICTD consequently has remained distanced from traditional development
>> practice. As a result, the best opportunities of ICTs for development
>> have not been able to be realized.
> Hi Parminder
> Is there a quotable source with regard to the above-mentioned issue?
Hi Norbert

This issue is treated briefly in an article titled ' From Social 
Enterprises to Mobiles—Seeking a Peg to Hang a Premeditated ICTD Theory 
' by my colleague at IT for Change, Anita Gurumurthy, published in the 
journal ' /Information Technologies & International Development/. The 
article can be accessed at 
*itidjournal.org/itid/article/viewFile/624/264* .  It is  a part of a 
special edition of the ITID journal 
(http://itidjournal.org/itid/issue/view/37)  that brought together 
lectures delivered at the Second Harvard Forum on ICTD, and includes a 
piece by Amartya Sen.

parminder


> (It isn't clear yet what the "IG map" that I'm planning to work on
> will contain, but I tend to think that it should contain besides
> positive information about the impact of various IG-related fora also
> references to such criticism.)
>
> 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/20110504/6c7535c2/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 acm.org  Wed May  4 07:38:48 2011
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 07:38:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <29462422.15935.1304435085586.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g09>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net> <29462422.15935.1304435085586.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g09>
Message-ID: <36ACF2C1-A4B0-44E1-9226-6EF2901C0F2B@acm.org>


On 3 May 2011, at 11:04, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote:

> Let me just add that the dissolution of IGF in this WSIS process without consistency, spirit and goal, means a "1st class burial" for the IGF, as well as for the Financing Mechanisms for WSIS goals in DCs, the second hot potatoe of the WSIS, that I'm asking for since the first prepcoms of the Tunis phase. With the success you can check in reading the 2011 Forum programme ...


As I have been reading all of the material on future IGF meetings, I too have found myself mourning the apparent demise of the IGF.  Sometimes I think it is being ripped asunder in a tug of war between ITU and DESA and at other times I think it is just being killed with neglect.

Unfortunately I don't even think it is a first class burial.  I think a first class burial might have come in 2015 when people looked at the products of the IGF and looked at the progress of multistakeholder participation in the seats of Internet power, however we define them, and said, "you know it has done its job." Now I worry it will never be allowed to do its job.  Many of us disagreed on exactly what its job was, but I think we mostly believed it had a job.  Since leaving the secretariat I have despaired at what I see happening and not happening.  I do not know how much time is left for saving the patient.

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

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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed May  4 10:46:07 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 16:46:07 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
 <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
 <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi everybody
 
the Clinton administration introduced the Cyber-Issues into the G 7 and UN with its Global Information Infrastructure Initiative (GII) from 1994 (which enlarged the US National Information Infrastructure Initiative (NII) from September 1993. Al Gore himself presented the idea of the GII (which did not include issues like DNS management) to the ITU Development Conference in Buenos Aires in 1994.
http://habitat.igc.org/ics/gii-itu/wtdc-bad.html. 
 
Later Al Gore presented this to a G 7 summit in Brussels in 1995, where also a so-called "Global Business Round Table" took place in parallel (which led later to the establishmend of the Global Business Dialogue on eCommerce/GBDe). After the Brussels meeting the G 7 (later the G 8) continued to work on this issue which finally produced the G 8 Okinawa Declaration from 2000 when the G 8 established to Digital Opportunity Task Froce (DotForce). 
http://www.undp.sk/uploads/Okinawa%20charter.pdf
 
The G 8 DotForce Initiative was countered by an ECOSOC ministerial meeting in 2001 (a lot of UN member states felt excluded from the G7/8 process in Okinawa) and the UN established the UN ICT Task Force (UNICTTF). The Bush administration had the cyberissues not on its priority list so the G 8 DotForce became irrelevant and was later more or less integrated into the UNICTTF, which struggled after 2002 to become relevant in the WSIS process. UNICTTF did play a role in the beginning of WSIS, but lost its momentum later. The mandate ended in 2005 and it was substituted by the Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID) which is nothing more than a paper tiger with no real identity and function. 
 
With regard to the forthcoming G 8 meeting in Deauville, this is indeed a top down, closed and exclusive event which irgnores totally all results of the Internet Governance debate of the last decade. This should be widely and loudly critisized. We discussed this with the French GAC representative in Strasbourg and he explained us that the governmental people in France doing ICANN and IGF issues, are widely disconnected from the sherpas, nominated by the president, to prepare the Deauville summit. This is a very serious point, at least in my eyes.
 
In the ICANN Studienkreis meeting last week in Budapest, the discussion went one step further, flagging the issue that there is generally a deep gap within (nearly all) governments between governmental agencies/ministeries dealing with Cybersecurity and departments dealing with the Internet Economy, with Human Rights in Cyberspace and generally with Internet Governance (ICANN/IGF etc.). As a result one and the same government talks with different voices and takes different positions in different bodies. 
 
One conclusion from this is to call for governments to bring their house in order and to reach a higher level of inter-agency coordination before they enter into a multistakeholder dialogue. Otherwiese they undermine the trust of the non-governmental stakeholders into governmental actions if one representative of a government supports multistakeholderism in one institution, but another body of the same government ingnores totally the multistakeholder principle when planning events like the forthcoming one in Paris/Deauville. 
 
We should not forget that the WSIS/WGIG Internet Governance definition, which gives all stakeholder a role and calls for shared policy and rules development and decision making, was adopted by the heads of states of 190+ UN member states in Tunis in November 2005. Governments of the world commited themselves to the multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance. The French government, host of the G 8, obviously ignores this. Somebody should tell this to the president of this republic. 
 
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 pbekono at gmail.com  Wed May  4 11:51:03 2011
From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 16:51:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Pre-IGF event Kenya and ITU
In-Reply-To: <206183.77052.qm@web39423.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <206183.77052.qm@web39423.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimuUis=5C5-bmRL_vgvhha6Kgagvg@mail.gmail.com>

--- En date de : Lun 2.5.11, Alice Munyua <alice at apc.org> a écrit :

De: Alice Munyua <alice at apc.org>
Objet: [DigAfrica] Fwd: Pre-IGF event Kenya and ITU
À: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
Cc: DigAfrica at yahoogroups.com, i-network at dgroups.org, "KICTAnet Media
Discussions" <media at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
Date: Lundi 2 mai 2011, 11h43


    Dear Colleagues,



    (apologies for cross posting)



      The Government of Kenya (GOK) will hold a High level Ministerial
      forum on 26th September 2011. This forum Co-organized with the
      International Telecommunications Union (ITU) will provide a platform where
      Ministerial level participants and other stakeholders will discuss
      issues of mutual interest around the opportunities and challenges
      to developing countries presented by information and
      communications technologies.


        The main agenda topics will be drawn from the following themes:



    ·      Broadband:
        Access, challenges and opportunities

    ·      Uptake of
        wireless devices as key elements in providing a conduit to a new and
        dynamic socio-economic future for the region, including new
        mobile services (e.g. E-government, mobile banking, access to
        Internet, among others)

    ·      Cloud computing
        and;

    ·      Cyber security and Privacy.

     The outcomes
        of the Ministerial forum will be shared with the  main IGF
        scheduled from 27th - 30th September 2011.


    More details
        will be made available soon.




        Best regards


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

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

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


From ocl at gih.com  Wed May  4 12:03:28 2011
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 18:03:28 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <4DC178D0.10705@gih.com>

Wolfgang,

I 100% agree with you.

Kind regards,

Olivier

Le 04/05/2011 16:46, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" a écrit :
> Hi everybody
>  
> the Clinton administration introduced the Cyber-Issues into the G 7 and UN with its Global Information Infrastructure Initiative (GII) from 1994 (which enlarged the US National Information Infrastructure Initiative (NII) from September 1993. Al Gore himself presented the idea of the GII (which did not include issues like DNS management) to the ITU Development Conference in Buenos Aires in 1994.
> http://habitat.igc.org/ics/gii-itu/wtdc-bad.html. 
>  
> Later Al Gore presented this to a G 7 summit in Brussels in 1995, where also a so-called "Global Business Round Table" took place in parallel (which led later to the establishmend of the Global Business Dialogue on eCommerce/GBDe). After the Brussels meeting the G 7 (later the G 8) continued to work on this issue which finally produced the G 8 Okinawa Declaration from 2000 when the G 8 established to Digital Opportunity Task Froce (DotForce). 
> http://www.undp.sk/uploads/Okinawa%20charter.pdf
>  
> The G 8 DotForce Initiative was countered by an ECOSOC ministerial meeting in 2001 (a lot of UN member states felt excluded from the G7/8 process in Okinawa) and the UN established the UN ICT Task Force (UNICTTF). The Bush administration had the cyberissues not on its priority list so the G 8 DotForce became irrelevant and was later more or less integrated into the UNICTTF, which struggled after 2002 to become relevant in the WSIS process. UNICTTF did play a role in the beginning of WSIS, but lost its momentum later. The mandate ended in 2005 and it was substituted by the Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID) which is nothing more than a paper tiger with no real identity and function. 
>  
> With regard to the forthcoming G 8 meeting in Deauville, this is indeed a top down, closed and exclusive event which irgnores totally all results of the Internet Governance debate of the last decade. This should be widely and loudly critisized. We discussed this with the French GAC representative in Strasbourg and he explained us that the governmental people in France doing ICANN and IGF issues, are widely disconnected from the sherpas, nominated by the president, to prepare the Deauville summit. This is a very serious point, at least in my eyes.
>  
> In the ICANN Studienkreis meeting last week in Budapest, the discussion went one step further, flagging the issue that there is generally a deep gap within (nearly all) governments between governmental agencies/ministeries dealing with Cybersecurity and departments dealing with the Internet Economy, with Human Rights in Cyberspace and generally with Internet Governance (ICANN/IGF etc.). As a result one and the same government talks with different voices and takes different positions in different bodies. 
>  
> One conclusion from this is to call for governments to bring their house in order and to reach a higher level of inter-agency coordination before they enter into a multistakeholder dialogue. Otherwiese they undermine the trust of the non-governmental stakeholders into governmental actions if one representative of a government supports multistakeholderism in one institution, but another body of the same government ingnores totally the multistakeholder principle when planning events like the forthcoming one in Paris/Deauville. 
>  
> We should not forget that the WSIS/WGIG Internet Governance definition, which gives all stakeholder a role and calls for shared policy and rules development and decision making, was adopted by the heads of states of 190+ UN member states in Tunis in November 2005. Governments of the world commited themselves to the multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance. The French government, host of the G 8, obviously ignores this. Somebody should tell this to the president of this republic. 
>  
> 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
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Wed May  4 12:07:26 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 12:07:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Pre-IGF event Kenya and ITU
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimuUis=5C5-bmRL_vgvhha6Kgagvg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206183.77052.qm@web39423.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <BANLkTimuUis=5C5-bmRL_vgvhha6Kgagvg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42ACFD7F-9359-43E3-9D84-8CB2AFAE028B@ella.com>

Hi,

I am concerned this major ITU event will tend to overshadow the IGF and is a sign of the ITU pulling for control of the IGF.  And what it can't control, it will bury.

a.


On 4 May 2011, at 11:51, Pascal Bekono wrote:

> --- En date de : Lun 2.5.11, Alice Munyua <alice at apc.org> a écrit :
> 
> De: Alice Munyua <alice at apc.org>
> Objet: [DigAfrica] Fwd: Pre-IGF event Kenya and ITU
> À: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> Cc: DigAfrica at yahoogroups.com, i-network at dgroups.org, "KICTAnet Media
> Discussions" <media at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> Date: Lundi 2 mai 2011, 11h43
> 
> 
>    Dear Colleagues,
> 
> 
> 
>    (apologies for cross posting)
> 
> 
> 
>      The Government of Kenya (GOK) will hold a High level Ministerial
>      forum on 26th September 2011. This forum Co-organized with the
>      International Telecommunications Union (ITU) will provide a platform where
>      Ministerial level participants and other stakeholders will discuss
>      issues of mutual interest around the opportunities and challenges
>      to developing countries presented by information and
>      communications technologies.
> 
> 
>        The main agenda topics will be drawn from the following themes:
> 
> 
> 
>    ·      Broadband:
>        Access, challenges and opportunities
> 
>    ·      Uptake of
>        wireless devices as key elements in providing a conduit to a new and
>        dynamic socio-economic future for the region, including new
>        mobile services (e.g. E-government, mobile banking, access to
>        Internet, among others)
> 
>    ·      Cloud computing
>        and;
> 
>    ·      Cyber security and Privacy.
> 
>     The outcomes
>        of the Ministerial forum will be shared with the  main IGF
>        scheduled from 27th - 30th September 2011.
> 
> 
>    More details
>        will be made available soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>        Best regards
> 
> 
>    Alice Munyua
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Wed May  4 19:33:45 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 16:33:45 -0700
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <n5YgMfswe7vNFAxw@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net> <n5YgMfswe7vNFAxw@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <4DC1E259.7090406@eff.org>

I have attended all the meetings since I was elected but not the last 
one. There were no funding available. I might not go to this one either 
but will do online conference call. I am still figuring out my agenda.

On 5/3/11 1:07 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> The number of people attending the Open Consultation has dwindled over 
> the years, and the attendee list is published. While some of the MAG 
> do not attend the Open Consultation, most of the others there for Day 
> 1 will also turn up as observers at the MAG.


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Wed May  4 19:35:10 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 16:35:10 -0700
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <4DC1E259.7090406@eff.org>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net> <n5YgMfswe7vNFAxw@internetpolicyagency.com> <4DC1E259.7090406@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DC1E2AE.8040602@eff.org>

online participation...
On 5/4/11 4:33 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> I have attended all the meetings since I was elected but not the last 
> one. There were no funding available. I might not go to this one 
> either but will do online conference call. I am still figuring out my 
> agenda.
>
> On 5/3/11 1:07 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>> The number of people attending the Open Consultation has dwindled 
>> over the years, and the attendee list is published. While some of the 
>> MAG do not attend the Open Consultation, most of the others there for 
>> Day 1 will also turn up as observers at the MAG.
>
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed May  4 19:59:58 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 16:59:58 -0700
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <4DC1E259.7090406@eff.org>
Message-ID: <41A404B4C03E4C8DB71E9DC530D5E8E8@userPC>

From my experience online participation in meetings is good for certain
types of discussions/interactions--information exchange, one way
transmission, interchanges where there is a clear agenda and a fairly clear
set of decisions to be made.  

It is much less useful in contexts such where there is a lot of back and
forth discussion (especially if people don't know each other very well and
the subjects are not clear cut), or where there is a lot of politiking, or
where the objective is making contacts/schmoozing/informal deal making...

My guess is that for a lot of people, the IGF is or they would like it to be
of the second variety rather than the first.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of Katitza Rodriguez
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:34 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry
Subject: Re: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations


I have attended all the meetings since I was elected but not the last 
one. There were no funding available. I might not go to this one either 
but will do online conference call. I am still figuring out my agenda.

On 5/3/11 1:07 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> The number of people attending the Open Consultation has dwindled over
> the years, and the attendee list is published. While some of the MAG 
> do not attend the Open Consultation, most of the others there for Day 
> 1 will also turn up as observers at the MAG.


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of
speech since 1990

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

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

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

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  5 02:14:15 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 11:44:15 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net>

Wolfgang,

Thanks for this very informative historical brief. There are many points 
here that I will like to engage with, but let me just respond to two 
connected ones.

On Wednesday 04 May 2011 08:16 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Hi everybody
>
> SNIP
> Later Al Gore presented this to a G 7 summit in Brussels in 1995, where also a so-called "Global Business Round Table" took place in parallel (which led later to the establishmend of the Global Business Dialogue on eCommerce/GBDe). After the Brussels meeting the G 7 (later the G 8) continued to work on this issue which finally produced the G 8 Okinawa Declaration from 2000 when the G 8 established to Digital Opportunity Task Froce (DotForce).
> http://www.undp.sk/uploads/Okinawa%20charter.pdf
>
> The G 8 DotForce Initiative was countered by an ECOSOC ministerial meeting in 2001 (a lot of UN member states felt excluded from the G7/8 process in Okinawa) and the UN established the UN ICT Task Force (UNICTTF).

That is an interesting parallel. Now that G 8 seems to be in a 'global 
agreement (read, among powerful countries, who are the self appointed 
trustees for the whole world) on key Internet issues'  sorts of mood, 
what next. Internet governance is even more political, globally, than 
was ICTD (the latter being more national kind of thing). So do we expect 
a UN backlash. It is already on through the politics around the 
'enhanced cooperation' process. What is our, global civil society's, 
specifically, IGC's, position on this?

Between a G8 led process of the kind underway, and a WSIS mandated 
'enhanced cooperation' process, where do we put our weight? (enough 
burying our collective heads in the sand on the global IG policy issue. 
That will only bring further harm to our cause. At least now we must 
learn our lessons that abdication would do on this issue.)

(SNIP)
>
> We should not forget that the WSIS/WGIG Internet Governance definition, which gives all stakeholder a role and calls for shared policy and rules development and decision making, was adopted by the heads of states of 190+ UN member states in Tunis in November 2005. Governments of the world commited themselves to the multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance. The French government, host of the G 8, obviously ignores this. Somebody should tell this to the president of this republic.
Why not us, the IGC. Who else will? But can we just write to them to 
make the process more multistakeholder, and not write that a closed 
process among the most powerful countries is not acceptable to the 
global civil society, representing marginalised interests, and all 
countires should be brought to the table to discus the issues that the 
G8 Internet meeting is proposing to do, and in this regard using the 
WSIS mandated 'enhanced cooperation' track is the right way to go.

Should IGC make such statement to the G8 meeting organisers?

Parminder

>
> 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/20110505/9f332a70/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 May  5 02:54:41 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 07:54:41 +0100
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <4DC1E259.7090406@eff.org>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
 <n5YgMfswe7vNFAxw@internetpolicyagency.com> <4DC1E259.7090406@eff.org>
Message-ID: <W0H8$4kxmkwNFA$d@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4DC1E259.7090406 at eff.org>, at 16:33:45 on Wed, 4 May 2011, 
Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> writes
>I have attended all the meetings since I was elected but not the last 
>one. There were no funding available. I might not go to this one either 
>but will do online conference call. I am still figuring out my agenda.
>
>On 5/3/11 1:07 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>> The number of people attending the Open Consultation has dwindled 
>>over  the years, and the attendee list is published. While some of the 
>>MAG  do not attend the Open Consultation, most of the others there for 
>>Day  1 will also turn up as observers at the MAG.

Given the travel costs, it surprises me when any participants only 
attend for one day (whether that's only the first or only the second).

But I do understand that travel funding is becoming more difficult, 
which is perhaps why the May meetings are largely attended only by those 
who have specific agendas regarding workshop acceptance and timetabling.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu May  5 03:10:44 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 09:10:44 +0200
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
 <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
 <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF35@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Parminder:
Should IGC make such statement to the G8 meeting organisers?

Wolfgang:
Yes


	 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Thu May  5 03:43:18 2011
From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 14:43:18 +0700
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>

Thanks to Wolfgang for this substantial report of history.

And thanks to Parminder for drawing the correct conclusion: Nobody else 
will do it, speak up and remind those who forget the history in this 
case, if Civil Society does not speak up, reminding the (present 
representatives of governments) that their predecessors achieved great 
things which they seem to forget.

How is this going to be organized? The major elements are in Wolfgang's 
write-up; it has to be mad short, focused on what what at the UN General 
Assembly setting the WSIS process on the way as multi-stakeholder, and 
the Tunis commitments also BY THE GOVERNMENTS PRESENT to the 
multi-stakeholder approach. And add some achievements since (which?).

Norbert

=

On 5/5/2011 1:14 PM, parminder wrote:
> Wolfgang,
>
> Thanks for this very informative historical brief. There are many 
> points here that I will like to engage with, but let me just respond 
> to two connected ones.
>
> On Wednesday 04 May 2011 08:16 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Hi everybody
>>
>> SNIP
>> Later Al Gore presented this to a G 7 summit in Brussels in 1995, where also a so-called "Global Business Round Table" took place in parallel (which led later to the establishmend of the Global Business Dialogue on eCommerce/GBDe). After the Brussels meeting the G 7 (later the G 8) continued to work on this issue which finally produced the G 8 Okinawa Declaration from 2000 when the G 8 established to Digital Opportunity Task Froce (DotForce).
>> http://www.undp.sk/uploads/Okinawa%20charter.pdf
>>
>> The G 8 DotForce Initiative was countered by an ECOSOC ministerial meeting in 2001 (a lot of UN member states felt excluded from the G7/8 process in Okinawa) and the UN established the UN ICT Task Force (UNICTTF).
>
> That is an interesting parallel. Now that G 8 seems to be in a 'global 
> agreement (read, among powerful countries, who are the self appointed 
> trustees for the whole world) on key Internet issues'  sorts of mood, 
> what next. Internet governance is even more political, globally, than 
> was ICTD (the latter being more national kind of thing). So do we 
> expect a UN backlash. It is already on through the politics around the 
> 'enhanced cooperation' process. What is our, global civil society's, 
> specifically, IGC's, position on this?
>
> Between a G8 led process of the kind underway, and a WSIS mandated 
> 'enhanced cooperation' process, where do we put our weight? (enough 
> burying our collective heads in the sand on the global IG policy 
> issue. That will only bring further harm to our cause. At least now we 
> must learn our lessons that abdication would do on this issue.)
>
> (SNIP)
>>
>> We should not forget that the WSIS/WGIG Internet Governance definition, which gives all stakeholder a role and calls for shared policy and rules development and decision making, was adopted by the heads of states of 190+ UN member states in Tunis in November 2005. Governments of the world commited themselves to the multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance. The French government, host of the G 8, obviously ignores this. Somebody should tell this to the president of this republic.
> Why not us, the IGC. Who else will? But can we just write to them to 
> make the process more multistakeholder, and not write that a closed 
> process among the most powerful countries is not acceptable to the 
> global civil society, representing marginalised interests, and all 
> countires should be brought to the table to discus the issues that the 
> G8 Internet meeting is proposing to do, and in this regard using the 
> WSIS mandated 'enhanced cooperation' track is the right way to go.
>
> Should IGC make such statement to the G8 meeting organisers?
>
> Parminder
>
>>
>> Wolfgang
>> ____________________________________________________________

-- 
Since 3 April 2011, The Mirror with reports and comments from Cambodia - originally since 1997 based on daily translations from the Khmer language press, is now only an archive of the past: http://www.cambodiamirror.org

But I started a new personal blog:

...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia
http://www.thinking21.org/

continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia.

Norbert Klein
nhklein at gmx.net
Phnom Penh / Cambodia


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110505/7fb3ac6d/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 May  5 04:18:45 2011
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:18:45 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
 <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
 <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <3965629.4930.1304583525876.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g29>

Thanks to Wolfgang and Parminder 

for providing relevant information and relate it with the actual/current debate inside of the CS accredited in the WSIS process. I fully agree Parminder's proposal for CS -in this case specially its IGC- to react accordingly to the future G8 meeting and to the statement of our narrow-minded and self-profiling president (I mean the French one ...):



Sure, IGC should ! And as quickly as possible !

Best greetings
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT-France  




> Message du 05/05/11 08:14
> De : "parminder" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
> 
> Wolfgang,
> 
> Thanks for this very informative historical brief. There are many points here that I will like to engage with, but let me just respond to two connected ones.
> 
> On Wednesday 04 May 2011 08:16 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: Hi everybody SNIP Later Al Gore presented this to a G 7 summit in Brussels in 1995, where also a so-called "Global Business Round Table" took place in parallel (which led later to the establishmend of the Global Business Dialogue on eCommerce/GBDe). After the Brussels meeting the G 7 (later the G 8) continued to work on this issue which finally produced the G 8 Okinawa Declaration from 2000 when the G 8 established to Digital Opportunity Task Froce (DotForce). http://www.undp.sk/uploads/Okinawa%20charter.pdf The G 8 DotForce Initiative was countered by an ECOSOC ministerial meeting in 2001 (a lot of UN member states felt excluded from the G7/8 process in Okinawa) and the UN established the UN ICT Task Force (UNICTTF). 
> That is an interesting parallel. Now that G 8 seems to be in a 'global agreement (read, among powerful countries, who are the self appointed trustees for the whole world) on key Internet issues'  sorts of mood, what next. Internet governance is even more political, globally, than was ICTD (the latter being more national kind of thing). So do we expect a UN backlash. It is already on through the politics around the 'enhanced cooperation' process. What is our, global civil society's, specifically, IGC's, position on this?
> 
> Between a G8 led process of the kind underway, and a WSIS mandated 'enhanced cooperation' process, where do we put our weight? (enough burying our collective heads in the sand on the global IG policy issue. That will only bring further harm to our cause. At least now we must learn our lessons that abdication would do on this issue.)
> 
> (SNIP)
> We should not forget that the WSIS/WGIG Internet Governance definition, which gives all stakeholder a role and calls for shared policy and rules development and decision making, was adopted by the heads of states of 190+ UN member states in Tunis in November 2005. Governments of the world commited themselves to the multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance. The French government, host of the G 8, obviously ignores this. Somebody should tell this to the president of this republic. Why not us, the IGC. Who else will? But can we just write to them to make the process more multistakeholder, and not write that a closed process among the most powerful countries is not acceptable to the global civil society, representing marginalised interests, and all countires should be brought to the table to discus the issues that the G8 Internet meeting is proposing to do, and in this regard using the WSIS mandated 'enhanced cooperation' track is the right way to go.
> 
> Should IGC make such statement to the G8 meeting organisers?
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 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/20110505/1b47b8b2/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  Thu May  5 04:28:17 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 16:28:17 +0800
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>



On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:43:18 +0700, Norbert Klein  wrote:  Thanks to
Wolfgang for this substantial report of history.

 And thanks to Parminder
for drawing the correct conclusion: Nobody else will do it, speak up and
remind those who forget the history in this case, if Civil Society does not
speak up, reminding the (present representatives of governments) that their
predecessors achieved great things which they seem to forget.

 How is this
going to be organized? The major elements are in Wolfgang's write-up; it
has to be mad short, focused on what what at the UN General Assembly
setting the WSIS process on the way as multi-stakeholder, and the Tunis
commitments also BY THE GOVERNMENTS PRESENT to the multi-stakeholder
approach. And add some achievements since (which?). 

There seems to be
agreement that the IGC should respond (and I concur with this). I would
like to invite Wolfgang or Parminder to volunteer to write a first draft.
If they do not have time, I should be able to put something together as a
draft based on their contributions to the list. 

   -- 

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


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 [1]

Read our  email
confidentiality notice [2]. Don't print this email unless necessary. 


Links:
------
[1] http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
[2]
http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110505/c24060a0/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 May  5 04:43:43 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 13:43:43 +0500
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF35@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
	<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
	<20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF35@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=sfYwSa=D00c-k4DqH8ZFS=rh8Og@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Parminder and Wolfgang,

I support Parminder's proposal for IGC to forward our
reaction/statement to the future G8 meeting. Wolfgang's detail about
the G8 process also gives us the important notion to look into other
policy making silos across the global public policy arena and
intervene where necessary so that some sense and the CS perspective is
shared into these forums.

-- FoO

2011/5/5 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
> Parminder:
> Should IGC make such statement to the G8 meeting organisers?
>
> Wolfgang:
> Yes
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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 william.drake at uzh.ch  Thu May  5 04:47:15 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:47:15 +0200
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1FB9EC17-F0F5-447D-88B1-AD22DB1DA24C@uzh.ch>

Hi

On May 3, 2011, at 7:14 AM, parminder wrote:

> 2) There is no funding support for civil society MAG members from developing countries, unlike earlier times, and I expect most to them to be unable to attend. This puts a huge question-mark on the legitimacy of the preparatory process, especially from civil society point of view. I think we should raise this issue. I expect the room to be filled by non-government actors from developed countries, and obviously the conversation will be determined and lead by them (which, because of a variety of factors, do often happen in any case; it will simply be, shall I say, much worse this time).

As the ITU is handling registration for both the WSIS Forum and the IGF, the names are folded into one file with no broken out list of consultation/MAG attendees on the IGF site per previous practice.  At present there are about 800 people registered, the overwhelming majority of them being from developing countries, especially from Africa, e.g. 40 from Ghana, 40 from Congo, 50 from Nigeria, etc.  The most heavily represented industrialized country by far is Switzerland with about 130, whereas there are four from Germany (of course, these numbers may change, and not everyone who registers ultimately comes). I would assume most of these folks are coming for the WSIS Forum rather than the IGF.  There are generally very few  IGF "usual suspects"  registered of any species.  As far as I can tell, IGC members include Anriette, Valeria, Adam, and myself (apologies to anyone whose name I missed, please inform).  Hopefully there will be a late rush of registrations, but at present it would seem that the consultation and MAG will have very light attendance, and if a lot of people from the government missions decide to come over that could affect things.  Needless to say, robust remote participation will be needed, assuming there is adequate logistical support.  We will be in the ILO which is a pretty unwired environment; if I recall correctly, at the WGIG meetings there six years ago there was no wifi and few electrical sockets for computers.  But ITU says they are bringing some equipment over so those of us who've organized workshops will at least be able to project Power Points etc.

Bottom line, the RP needs to be nailed down.

Cheers,

Bill






--Please note new email address--

***************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch
www.williamdrake.org
****************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110505/c49df4b3/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  Thu May  5 05:53:37 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 11:53:37 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: Pre-IGF event Kenya and ITU
References: <206183.77052.qm@web39423.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <BANLkTimuUis=5C5-bmRL_vgvhha6Kgagvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <42ACFD7F-9359-43E3-9D84-8CB2AFAE028B@ella.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF39@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Will this be a closed meeting or open for the public?
 
w
 
 

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Mi 04.05.2011 18:07
An: IGC
Betreff: Re: [governance] Fwd: Pre-IGF event Kenya and ITU



Hi,

I am concerned this major ITU event will tend to overshadow the IGF and is a sign of the ITU pulling for control of the IGF.  And what it can't control, it will bury.

a.


On 4 May 2011, at 11:51, Pascal Bekono wrote:

> --- En date de : Lun 2.5.11, Alice Munyua <alice at apc.org> a écrit :
>
> De: Alice Munyua <alice at apc.org>
> Objet: [DigAfrica] Fwd: Pre-IGF event Kenya and ITU
> À: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> Cc: DigAfrica at yahoogroups.com, i-network at dgroups.org, "KICTAnet Media
> Discussions" <media at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> Date: Lundi 2 mai 2011, 11h43
>
>
>    Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
>    (apologies for cross posting)
>
>
>
>      The Government of Kenya (GOK) will hold a High level Ministerial
>      forum on 26th September 2011. This forum Co-organized with the
>      International Telecommunications Union (ITU) will provide a platform where
>      Ministerial level participants and other stakeholders will discuss
>      issues of mutual interest around the opportunities and challenges
>      to developing countries presented by information and
>      communications technologies.
>
>
>        The main agenda topics will be drawn from the following themes:
>
>
>
>    ·      Broadband:
>        Access, challenges and opportunities
>
>    ·      Uptake of
>        wireless devices as key elements in providing a conduit to a new and
>        dynamic socio-economic future for the region, including new
>        mobile services (e.g. E-government, mobile banking, access to
>        Internet, among others)
>
>    ·      Cloud computing
>        and;
>
>    ·      Cyber security and Privacy.
>
>     The outcomes
>        of the Ministerial forum will be shared with the  main IGF
>        scheduled from 27th - 30th September 2011.
>
>
>    More details
>        will be made available soon.
>
>
>
>
>        Best regards
>
>
>    Alice Munyua
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

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

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

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



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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  5 06:05:50 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 11:05:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <1FB9EC17-F0F5-447D-88B1-AD22DB1DA24C@uzh.ch>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
 <1FB9EC17-F0F5-447D-88B1-AD22DB1DA24C@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <SDENCU3+ZnwNFAsD@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <1FB9EC17-F0F5-447D-88B1-AD22DB1DA24C at uzh.ch>, at 10:47:15 on 
Thu, 5 May 2011, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> writes

 >...at present it would seem that the consultation and
 >MAG will have very light attendance, and if a lot of people from the
 >government missions decide to come over that could affect things.

In the past I think Governments have shied away from getting involved in 
specific decisions like "why don't we merge workshop 109 and 192 because 
they are both about mobile Internet" [a real, but random, example, no 
reflection intended on the organisers]

Or "we can't support workshop 192 because only two of the speakers have 
been named, so we can't verify diversity, and they've failed to nominate 
a remote moderator which was one of the requirements". [Same disclaimer]

But those are the sort of things that will be discussed and decided on 
the day.

 >Bottom line, the RP needs to be nailed down.

And if remote participants want to have any hope of following the 
proceedings, they will need access to a frequently updated chart of 
workshops, their status, and which slots they are currently in. It's 
difficult enough to keep track even when you are in the room!

Presumably the MAG is already working on their own 'traffic light 
scorecard' for the workshops, via their mailing list, as in previous 
years??
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu May  5 08:17:28 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 17:47:28 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
Message-ID: <4DC29558.8030306@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 05 May 2011 01:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:43:18 +0700, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
> There seems to be agreement that the IGC should respond (and I concur 
> with this).  I would like to invite Wolfgang or Parminder to volunteer 
> to write a first draft.  If they do not have time, I should be able to 
> put something together as a draft based on their contributions to the 
> list.
>
While I can try to put together some text, i am not sure what really do 
we want to say. If it is *only* an appeal to make the G 8 meeting more 
multistakeholder, as I have argued earlier, I am not interested. For me, 
our communication should clearly make the point that in any discussion 
on the kind of issues that the G8 meeting is taking up, all countries 
must be included on an equal footing. And this is best done in a UN 
forum rather than at such meeting of most powerful nations. We can refer 
to the inherently global nature of the Internet and how policy decisions 
taken by the most powerful countries by default largely become 
applicable to the whole world.

We can then refer to the institutional forms that have been mandated by 
the WSIS - enhanced cooperation and the IGF, and refer to subsequent UN 
Gen Assembly  resolutions that the two processes are complementary. Thus 
any global public policy development should not only involve all 
countries and all stakeholders, it should also  always and continually 
remain connected to the IGF as the agora where public opinion on key IG 
issues is formed and shared. Something to this effect.

Now, if these elements look ok, I can do some drafting. Thanks, Parminder

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110505/9664fc95/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 katitza at eff.org  Thu May  5 09:06:31 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 06:06:31 -0700
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <W0H8$4kxmkwNFA$d@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net> <n5YgMfswe7vNFAxw@internetpolicyagency.com> <4DC1E259.7090406@eff.org> <W0H8$4kxmkwNFA$d@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <4DC2A0D7.2050503@eff.org>

Hi Roland,

I do not think anyone from civil society MAG members have only attended 
the meeting for one day. This will be outrageous! Traveling to Geneva 
for one day. At least this is my experience.  I haven't notice that. I 
have attended all meetings including open consultations and the 2 days 
MAG meetings (including civil society preparatory meetings one day 
before the meeting starts). when I have attended the meeting, which have 
been all the meetings but not the last one for funding reasons.


On 5/4/11 11:54 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4DC1E259.7090406 at eff.org>, at 16:33:45 on Wed, 4 May 2011, 
> Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> writes
>> I have attended all the meetings since I was elected but not the last 
>> one. There were no funding available. I might not go to this one 
>> either but will do online conference call. I am still figuring out my 
>> agenda.
>>
>> On 5/3/11 1:07 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> The number of people attending the Open Consultation has dwindled 
>>> over  the years, and the attendee list is published. While some of 
>>> the MAG  do not attend the Open Consultation, most of the others 
>>> there for Day  1 will also turn up as observers at the MAG.
>
> Given the travel costs, it surprises me when any participants only 
> attend for one day (whether that's only the first or only the second).
>
> But I do understand that travel funding is becoming more difficult, 
> which is perhaps why the May meetings are largely attended only by 
> those who have specific agendas regarding workshop acceptance and 
> timetabling.


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From ceo at bnnrc.net  Thu May  5 09:26:44 2011
From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 19:26:44 +0600
Subject: [governance] Regarding 14th UN CSTD Meeting in Geneva
Message-ID: <728B2B0BFA2C49318BA907CE2CDD9EC2@BNNRCLAPTOP1>


Dear Madam/Sir,
Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
I am pleased to inform you that, I will join the  Commission on Science and Technology for Development, fourteenth session on 23-27 May 2011 in Geneva.
The Commission will review progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) outcomes at the regional and international levels, including on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

The Commission will address the following priority themes:

  a.. Measuring the impact of information and communications technology for development


  b.. Technologies to address challenges in areas such as agriculture and water
In addition, the Commission will hear presentations on national science, technology and innovation policy reviews. Participants will include Representatives of Governments, civil society, the private sector, international organizations and many others.

Is there any advice for me from your side? Pls let me inform.
With best regards,





Bazlu
_________________________
AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR
Chief Executive Officer
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council]
& 
Head, Community Radio Academy 
 
House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 
Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh
 
Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501
Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105
E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110505/ea2c220a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1px.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110505/ea2c220a/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  5 09:50:28 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 22:50:28 +0900
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC29558.8030306@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
 <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
 <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
 <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
 <4DC29558.8030306@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <p06240802c9e857a998cd@[192.168.51.105]>

The G8 meeting that's a concern seems to be a side event, not part of 
the G8 proper.

See 
<http://gigaom.com/2011/05/02/france-to-internet-g8-will-talk-to-you-for-a-price/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OmMalik+%28GigaOM%3A+Tech%29>

All the same, it's pretty offensive.

G8 in Okinawa/DOT Force did set some precedent for multi-stakeholder 
involvement so the situation in France now more than a decade later 
is a very great shame to see.  Like many first steps DOT Force was 
hesitant and very far from ideal, but things have to start 
somewhere/somehow.  The non-governmental stakeholders were hand 
picked by their respective G8 governments (GLOCOM was the Japanese 
rep.)  Developing country membership was very limited (Egypt, 
Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania), but their involvement was also a 
little unique at the time.  Looking back the recommendations were 
naive. And it was undone by changes in government (Clinton to Bush), 
and by moving things to the largely ineffectual UNICT Task Force.

FWIW the action item we worked on below. Now 10 years on.

France G8: Sarkozy and Internet Freedom just screams oxymoron.

Adam



AP5. Establish and Support Universal Participation in
Addressing New International Policy and
Technical Issues raised by the Internet and ICT
a) Support should be provided for developing country stakeholders --
governments, private companies, NPOs, citizens and academics-- to better
understand global Internet and other ICT technical and policy issues and to
participate more effectively in relevant global fora;
b) The resource network identified in Action Point 1 should provide information
on decisions that will be taken at such fora, an open platform for papers by
experts, and facilitation of the exchange of views;
c) Support a network of Southern-based expertise - which could access the
resource network identified in Action Point 1- to support the representatives
of developing countries as they seek to participate effectively in these fora
and address these issues in their own context;
d) Global policy and technical fora and organizations working on 
Internet and ICT
issues should make a special effort to bring representatives of 
developing nations
into their discussions and decision-making processes;
e) The United Nations ICT Task Force should be encouraged in its stated goal
of identifying options for involving developing country stakeholders in these
new issues.



>On Thursday 05 May 2011 01:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:43:18 +0700, Norbert Klein 
>><mailto:nhklein at gmx.net><nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>There seems to be agreement that the IGC should respond (and I 
>>concur with this).  I would like to invite Wolfgang or Parminder to 
>>volunteer to write a first draft.  If they do not have time, I 
>>should be able to put something together as a draft based on their 
>>contributions to the list.
>>
>>
>>
>While I can try to put together some text, i am not sure what really 
>do we want to say. If it is *only* an appeal to make the G 8 meeting 
>more multistakeholder, as I have argued earlier, I am not 
>interested. For me, our communication should clearly make the point 
>that in any discussion on the kind of issues that the G8 meeting is 
>taking up, all countries must be included on an equal footing. And 
>this is best done in a UN forum rather than at such meeting of most 
>powerful nations. We can refer to the inherently global nature of 
>the Internet and how policy decisions taken by the most powerful 
>countries by default largely become applicable to the whole world.
>
>We can then refer to the institutional forms that have been mandated 
>by the WSIS - enhanced cooperation and the IGF, and refer to 
>subsequent UN Gen Assembly  resolutions that the two processes are 
>complementary. Thus any global public policy development should not 
>only involve all countries and all stakeholders, it should also 
>always and continually remain connected to the IGF as the agora 
>where public opinion on key IG issues is formed and shared. 
>Something to this effect.
>
>Now, if these elements look ok, I can do some drafting. Thanks, Parminder
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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


From nb at bollow.ch  Thu May  5 11:26:35 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu,  5 May 2011 17:26:35 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC29558.8030306@itforchange.net> (message from parminder on
	Thu, 05 May 2011 17:47:28 +0530)
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC29558.8030306@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <20110505152635.2134315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> our communication should clearly make the point that in any discussion 
> on the kind of issues that the G8 meeting is taking up, all countries 
> must be included on an equal footing.

I strongly agree with this principle, as part of the even broader
principle that *all* legitimate concerns (including concerns that
are not particularly on the agenda of any government) must be
appropriately taken under consideration.

The challenge is of course that the more diverse the participants
in any discussion are, the more difficult it will be to arrive at
a conclusion that presents a viable way forward from all viewpoints
of the various participants. I suspect that this probably why the
G8 find the idea appealing to try to decide things simply among
themselves.

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

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu May  5 11:31:26 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 08:31:26 -0700
Subject: FW: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
Message-ID: <76777A2384ED46D2B373E66537D3DAEC@userPC>


FWIW, Canada's generally acknowledged "premiere digital media" event, to
which the Minister responsible always provides a keynote address (and where
the Minister is widely expected to present his current thinking concerning
digital policy) bills itself as "The Place Where Industry, Government and
Academia Come Together to Spark Creativity, Foster Innovation, and Drive
Productivity". http://www.canada30.com/

About Canada 3.0 & why you should attend

Join us for Canada's premier digital media conference where decision makers
and policy shakers across Industry, Government and Academia converge to
spark creativity, foster innovation and drive productivity.

Learn how Canada stacks up against the world. How far we have come. And how
far we have to go.

Establish lasting relationships with fellow visionaries, strategists and
entrepreneurs from leading universities and colleges, the private sector and
all levels of government.

Dialogue with the best and brightest minds in Canada.

Have your say in what Canada must do to earn its rightful spot as a global
leader in digital media.

Be the future. 

(I can't find the quotes right now... But the implication is that if you
want a shortcut to influencing Canadian digital policy you should be
attending this conference (fee $500+, + travel,
+accommodation=$1500>$2000...

Note who/what isn't invited/included.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of Adam Peake
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 6:50 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting


The G8 meeting that's a concern seems to be a side event, not part of 
the G8 proper.

See 
<http://gigaom.com/2011/05/02/france-to-internet-g8-will-talk-to-you-for-a-p
rice/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OmMalik+%28
GigaOM%3A+Tech%29>

All the same, it's pretty offensive.

G8 in Okinawa/DOT Force did set some precedent for multi-stakeholder 
involvement so the situation in France now more than a decade later 
is a very great shame to see.  Like many first steps DOT Force was 
hesitant and very far from ideal, but things have to start 
somewhere/somehow.  The non-governmental stakeholders were hand 
picked by their respective G8 governments (GLOCOM was the Japanese 
rep.)  Developing country membership was very limited (Egypt, 
Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania), but their involvement was also a 
little unique at the time.  Looking back the recommendations were 
naive. And it was undone by changes in government (Clinton to Bush), 
and by moving things to the largely ineffectual UNICT Task Force.

FWIW the action item we worked on below. Now 10 years on.

France G8: Sarkozy and Internet Freedom just screams oxymoron.

Adam



AP5. Establish and Support Universal Participation in Addressing New
International Policy and Technical Issues raised by the Internet and ICT
a) Support should be provided for developing country stakeholders --
governments, private companies, NPOs, citizens and academics-- to better
understand global Internet and other ICT technical and policy issues and to
participate more effectively in relevant global fora;
b) The resource network identified in Action Point 1 should provide
information on decisions that will be taken at such fora, an open platform
for papers by experts, and facilitation of the exchange of views;
c) Support a network of Southern-based expertise - which could access the
resource network identified in Action Point 1- to support the
representatives of developing countries as they seek to participate
effectively in these fora and address these issues in their own context;
d) Global policy and technical fora and organizations working on 
Internet and ICT
issues should make a special effort to bring representatives of 
developing nations
into their discussions and decision-making processes;
e) The United Nations ICT Task Force should be encouraged in its stated goal
of identifying options for involving developing country stakeholders in
these new issues.



>On Thursday 05 May 2011 01:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:43:18 +0700, Norbert Klein 
>><mailto:nhklein at gmx.net><nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>There seems to be agreement that the IGC should respond (and I concur 
>>with this).  I would like to invite Wolfgang or Parminder to volunteer 
>>to write a first draft.  If they do not have time, I should be able to 
>>put something together as a draft based on their contributions to the 
>>list.
>>
>>
>>
>While I can try to put together some text, i am not sure what really do 
>we want to say. If it is *only* an appeal to make the G 8 meeting more 
>multistakeholder, as I have argued earlier, I am not interested. For 
>me, our communication should clearly make the point that in any 
>discussion on the kind of issues that the G8 meeting is taking up, all 
>countries must be included on an equal footing. And this is best done 
>in a UN forum rather than at such meeting of most powerful nations. We 
>can refer to the inherently global nature of the Internet and how 
>policy decisions taken by the most powerful countries by default 
>largely become applicable to the whole world.
>
>We can then refer to the institutional forms that have been mandated by 
>the WSIS - enhanced cooperation and the IGF, and refer to subsequent UN 
>Gen Assembly  resolutions that the two processes are complementary. 
>Thus any global public policy development should not only involve all 
>countries and all stakeholders, it should also always and continually 
>remain connected to the IGF as the agora where public opinion on key IG 
>issues is formed and shared. Something to this effect.
>
>Now, if these elements look ok, I can do some drafting. Thanks,
>Parminder
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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


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

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Thu May  5 10:14:31 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 15:14:31 +0100
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <4DC2A0D7.2050503@eff.org>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
 <n5YgMfswe7vNFAxw@internetpolicyagency.com> <4DC1E259.7090406@eff.org>
 <W0H8$4kxmkwNFA$d@internetpolicyagency.com> <4DC2A0D7.2050503@eff.org>
Message-ID: <sWqSnHRHDrwNFArs@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4DC2A0D7.2050503 at eff.org>, at 06:06:31 on Thu, 5 May 2011, 
Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> remarked:
>Hi Roland,
>
>I do not think anyone from civil society MAG members have only attended 
>the meeting for one day. This will be outrageous! Traveling to Geneva 
>for one day. At least this is my experience.  I haven't notice that.

I was being careful not to mention any names, and was certainly not 
trying to criticise the CS members.

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May  5 10:24:17 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 07:24:17 -0700
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <sWqSnHRHDrwNFArs@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net> <n5YgMfswe7vNFAxw@internetpolicyagency.com> <4DC1E259.7090406@eff.org> <W0H8$4kxmkwNFA$d@internetpolicyagency.com> <4DC2A0D7.2050503@eff.org> <sWqSnHRHDrwNFArs@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <4DC2B311.8010000@eff.org>

Hi Roland

Many thanks for your reply, Roland. I felt obligated to say it and make 
it clear since I haven't seen that from the CS MAG members who have 
attended the meetings. :-)

On 5/5/11 7:14 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4DC2A0D7.2050503 at eff.org>, at 06:06:31 on Thu, 5 May 2011, 
> Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> remarked:
>> Hi Roland,
>>
>> I do not think anyone from civil society MAG members have only 
>> attended the meeting for one day. This will be outrageous! Traveling 
>> to Geneva for one day. At least this is my experience.  I haven't 
>> notice that.
>
> I was being careful not to mention any names, and was certainly not 
> trying to criticise the CS members.
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  5 11:52:53 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 21:22:53 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <20110505152635.2134315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC29558.8030306@itforchange.net> <20110505152635.2134315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <4DC2C7D5.5040101@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 05 May 2011 08:56 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>
>> our communication should clearly make the point that in any discussion
>> on the kind of issues that the G8 meeting is taking up, all countries
>> must be included on an equal footing.
> I strongly agree with this principle, as part of the even broader
> principle that *all* legitimate concerns (including concerns that
> are not particularly on the agenda of any government) must be
> appropriately taken under consideration.
>
> The challenge is of course that the more diverse the participants
> in any discussion are, the more difficult it will be to arrive at
> a conclusion that presents a viable way forward from all viewpoints
> of the various participants.

Norbert,

Sorry if I sound sarcastic, also since we have mostly agreed on most 
things, but I need to make my point clearly; what you say is one of the 
most ingenious arguments against democracy. (Also a bit funny, why the 
same argument cant be used against multistakeholderism ???) And I am a 
great supporter of democracy, almost my primary passion. And my distinct 
impression is that democratic insitutions world wide have been able to 
take more effective decisions than  plutocratic ones. We need to believe 
in democracy, including global democracy, at more than at level of 
principle, we need to take practical measures to press for it. Again, if 
civil society wont do this i dont know who will. 'Multistakeholderism, 
yes, democracy, no', is not at all acceptable, This was also the main 
point of my presentation at the recent CoE on Internet principles 
meeting as well.

Parminder

> I suspect that this probably why the
> G8 find the idea appealing to try to decide things simply among
> themselves.
>
> 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/20110505/a62def33/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  Thu May  5 12:18:14 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 18:18:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] new gTLD Heraring
References: <76777A2384ED46D2B373E66537D3DAEC@userPC>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

FYI
 
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_05022011.html
 
wolfgang
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From iza at anr.org  Fri May  6 05:22:31 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 18:22:31 +0900
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <p06240802c9e857a998cd@192.168.51.105>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
 <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC29558.8030306@itforchange.net>
 <p06240802c9e857a998cd@192.168.51.105>
Message-ID: <BANLkTik1rZ17ieW39HZaJA6oax7UWODFWQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,

Sorry for coming this late. I just came back from one week visit to the
earthquake/tsunami devastated areas again and could not really
put attention to the list discussion. I have only glanced this thread, not
in detail yet, I must say.

However, thanks Parminder for bringing this matter up, and agree with
all to have IGC statement in time.

I was an official proxy to Professor Kumon, head of GLOCOM, and
participated in G8DOT Force, and also brought Adam there.

I don't have much time now to write in details, but will try later.
Bertrand that time working for French Foreign ministry was
very much involved in the DOT Force, and supported the Non-profit
organization (NPO) participation - I believe it was called "tripartite".
And my both then, Prof Kumon , was asked by the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Japan, after the first DOT Force meeting in Tokyo since
there was no NPO they could put while all other countries could.
So prof. Kumon  told MOFA to put me as proxy and they accepted it.

US government was undergoing the leadership change from 2001,
from Clinton to Bush administration, yet Marckle Foundation was trying to
be inside this tripartite and lobbied Clinton admin I recall.

In any case, this French meeting shows a very bad direction and
we should really make the case. It is almost the first major set-back
from civil society in the global ICT policy and governance stage since
2001.

izumi


2011/5/5 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:
> The G8 meeting that's a concern seems to be a side event, not part of the G8
> proper.
>
> See
> <http://gigaom.com/2011/05/02/france-to-internet-g8-will-talk-to-you-for-a-price/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OmMalik+%28GigaOM%3A+Tech%29>
>
> All the same, it's pretty offensive.
>
> G8 in Okinawa/DOT Force did set some precedent for multi-stakeholder
> involvement so the situation in France now more than a decade later is a
> very great shame to see.  Like many first steps DOT Force was hesitant and
> very far from ideal, but things have to start somewhere/somehow.  The
> non-governmental stakeholders were hand picked by their respective G8
> governments (GLOCOM was the Japanese rep.)  Developing country membership
> was very limited (Egypt, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania), but their
> involvement was also a little unique at the time.  Looking back the
> recommendations were naive. And it was undone by changes in government
> (Clinton to Bush), and by moving things to the largely ineffectual UNICT
> Task Force.
>
> FWIW the action item we worked on below. Now 10 years on.
>
> France G8: Sarkozy and Internet Freedom just screams oxymoron.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> AP5. Establish and Support Universal Participation in
> Addressing New International Policy and
> Technical Issues raised by the Internet and ICT
> a) Support should be provided for developing country stakeholders --
> governments, private companies, NPOs, citizens and academics-- to better
> understand global Internet and other ICT technical and policy issues and to
> participate more effectively in relevant global fora;
> b) The resource network identified in Action Point 1 should provide
> information
> on decisions that will be taken at such fora, an open platform for papers by
> experts, and facilitation of the exchange of views;
> c) Support a network of Southern-based expertise - which could access the
> resource network identified in Action Point 1- to support the
> representatives
> of developing countries as they seek to participate effectively in these
> fora
> and address these issues in their own context;
> d) Global policy and technical fora and organizations working on Internet
> and ICT
> issues should make a special effort to bring representatives of developing
> nations
> into their discussions and decision-making processes;
> e) The United Nations ICT Task Force should be encouraged in its stated goal
> of identifying options for involving developing country stakeholders in
> these
> new issues.
>
>
>
>> On Thursday 05 May 2011 01:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:43:18 +0700, Norbert Klein
>>> <mailto:nhklein at gmx.net><nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> There seems to be agreement that the IGC should respond (and I concur
>>> with this).  I would like to invite Wolfgang or Parminder to volunteer to
>>> write a first draft.  If they do not have time, I should be able to put
>>> something together as a draft based on their contributions to the list.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> While I can try to put together some text, i am not sure what really do we
>> want to say. If it is *only* an appeal to make the G 8 meeting more
>> multistakeholder, as I have argued earlier, I am not interested. For me, our
>> communication should clearly make the point that in any discussion on the
>> kind of issues that the G8 meeting is taking up, all countries must be
>> included on an equal footing. And this is best done in a UN forum rather
>> than at such meeting of most powerful nations. We can refer to the
>> inherently global nature of the Internet and how policy decisions taken by
>> the most powerful countries by default largely become applicable to the
>> whole world.
>>
>> We can then refer to the institutional forms that have been mandated by
>> the WSIS - enhanced cooperation and the IGF, and refer to subsequent UN Gen
>> Assembly  resolutions that the two processes are complementary. Thus any
>> global public policy development should not only involve all countries and
>> all stakeholders, it should also always and continually remain connected to
>> the IGF as the agora where public opinion on key IG issues is formed and
>> shared. Something to this effect.
>>
>> Now, if these elements look ok, I can do some drafting. Thanks, Parminder
>>
>>
>> __________________________________
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From b.schombe at gmail.com  Fri May  6 05:23:45 2011
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 11:23:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimMWqBiS=pRORT7NW=1QhrEcMpLuA@mail.gmail.com>

This is an important information and extreme relevance. Thank you Wolf
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN

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

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




2011/5/4 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

> Hi everybody
>
> the Clinton administration introduced the Cyber-Issues into the G 7 and UN
> with its Global Information Infrastructure Initiative (GII) from 1994 (which
> enlarged the US National Information Infrastructure Initiative (NII) from
> September 1993. Al Gore himself presented the idea of the GII (which did not
> include issues like DNS management) to the ITU Development Conference in
> Buenos Aires in 1994.
> http://habitat.igc.org/ics/gii-itu/wtdc-bad.html.
>
> Later Al Gore presented this to a G 7 summit in Brussels in 1995, where
> also a so-called "Global Business Round Table" took place in parallel (which
> led later to the establishmend of the Global Business Dialogue on
> eCommerce/GBDe). After the Brussels meeting the G 7 (later the G 8)
> continued to work on this issue which finally produced the G 8 Okinawa
> Declaration from 2000 when the G 8 established to Digital Opportunity Task
> Froce (DotForce).
> http://www.undp.sk/uploads/Okinawa%20charter.pdf
>
> The G 8 DotForce Initiative was countered by an ECOSOC ministerial meeting
> in 2001 (a lot of UN member states felt excluded from the G7/8 process in
> Okinawa) and the UN established the UN ICT Task Force (UNICTTF). The Bush
> administration had the cyberissues not on its priority list so the G 8
> DotForce became irrelevant and was later more or less integrated into the
> UNICTTF, which struggled after 2002 to become relevant in the WSIS process.
> UNICTTF did play a role in the beginning of WSIS, but lost its momentum
> later. The mandate ended in 2005 and it was substituted by the Global
> Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID) which is nothing more than a paper
> tiger with no real identity and function.
>
> With regard to the forthcoming G 8 meeting in Deauville, this is indeed a
> top down, closed and exclusive event which irgnores totally all results of
> the Internet Governance debate of the last decade. This should be widely and
> loudly critisized. We discussed this with the French GAC representative in
> Strasbourg and he explained us that the governmental people in France doing
> ICANN and IGF issues, are widely disconnected from the sherpas, nominated by
> the president, to prepare the Deauville summit. This is a very serious
> point, at least in my eyes.
>
> In the ICANN Studienkreis meeting last week in Budapest, the discussion
> went one step further, flagging the issue that there is generally a deep gap
> within (nearly all) governments between governmental agencies/ministeries
> dealing with Cybersecurity and departments dealing with the Internet
> Economy, with Human Rights in Cyberspace and generally with Internet
> Governance (ICANN/IGF etc.). As a result one and the same government talks
> with different voices and takes different positions in different bodies.
>
> One conclusion from this is to call for governments to bring their house in
> order and to reach a higher level of inter-agency coordination before they
> enter into a multistakeholder dialogue. Otherwiese they undermine the trust
> of the non-governmental stakeholders into governmental actions if one
> representative of a government supports multistakeholderism in one
> institution, but another body of the same government ingnores totally the
> multistakeholder principle when planning events like the forthcoming one in
> Paris/Deauville.
>
> We should not forget that the WSIS/WGIG Internet Governance definition,
> which gives all stakeholder a role and calls for shared policy and rules
> development and decision making, was adopted by the heads of states of 190+
> UN member states in Tunis in November 2005. Governments of the world
> commited themselves to the multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance.
> The French government, host of the G 8, obviously ignores this. Somebody
> should tell this to the president of this republic.
>
> 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/20110506/b0dc9235/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  Fri May  6 06:13:52 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri,  6 May 2011 12:13:52 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC2C7D5.5040101@itforchange.net> (message from parminder on
	Thu, 05 May 2011 21:22:53 +0530)
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC29558.8030306@itforchange.net> <20110505152635.2134315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC2C7D5.5040101@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <20110506101352.BF55015C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

Parminder,

just to be totally clear, I am absolutely and fully in agreement with
you that any attempt of circumventing proper decision-making (which in
many contexts including in particular governance of states has to be
democratic in order to be proper) is totally unacceptable. I was just
trying to point out that proper decision-making in contexts with many
diverse stakeholders is not easy, and I think that we should
understand that one of the motivations that powerful stakeholders have
for trying to take unacceptable short-cuts is the desire to avoid
these difficulties, as well as the associated perceived risk of
failure to reach any acceptable decision. In fact, I believe that the
effectiveness of demands for proper inclusion of all relevant
stakeholders will be limited until true multistakeholder fora like the
IGF have proved themselves capable of creating the kind of outputs
that are necessary for guiding the way forward.

This is not an argument against drafting the kind of IGC statement
that you have proposed. I'm fully in favor of IGC speaking out as
have proposed.

Greetings,
Norbert



> On Thursday 05 May 2011 08:56 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
> >
> >> our communication should clearly make the point that in any discussion
> >> on the kind of issues that the G8 meeting is taking up, all countries
> >> must be included on an equal footing.
> > I strongly agree with this principle, as part of the even broader
> > principle that *all* legitimate concerns (including concerns that
> > are not particularly on the agenda of any government) must be
> > appropriately taken under consideration.
> >
> > The challenge is of course that the more diverse the participants
> > in any discussion are, the more difficult it will be to arrive at
> > a conclusion that presents a viable way forward from all viewpoints
> > of the various participants.
> 
> Norbert,
> 
> Sorry if I sound sarcastic, also since we have mostly agreed on most 
> things, but I need to make my point clearly; what you say is one of the 
> most ingenious arguments against democracy. (Also a bit funny, why the 
> same argument cant be used against multistakeholderism ???) And I am a 
> great supporter of democracy, almost my primary passion. And my distinct 
> impression is that democratic insitutions world wide have been able to 
> take more effective decisions than  plutocratic ones. We need to believe 
> in democracy, including global democracy, at more than at level of 
> principle, we need to take practical measures to press for it. Again, if 
> civil society wont do this i dont know who will. 'Multistakeholderism, 
> yes, democracy, no', is not at all acceptable, This was also the main 
> point of my presentation at the recent CoE on Internet principles 
> meeting as well.
> 
> Parminder
> 
> > I suspect that this probably why the
> > G8 find the idea appealing to try to decide things simply among
> > themselves.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sat May  7 07:58:26 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 16:58:26 +0500
Subject: [governance] Faces of Privacy breaches, networked intrusion with
 Sony Play Station
Message-ID: <BANLkTinWGdOV0SDvOo8k=reKkPz6Tmj+Jg@mail.gmail.com>

The PlayStation Network has been shut down for more than two weeks now
as Sony scrambles to rectify an 'illegal and unauthorized intrusion'
that has resulted in a significant theft of personal information

Play by Play: Sony's Struggles on Breach
Wall Street Journal
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704810504576307322759299038.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read

Interactive Graphic explaining the affected accounts etc:
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-NU800_GAMES_G_20110506210902.jpg
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703992704576305412581285414.html?mod=ITP_pageone_2#project%3DTHISWEEKD1105%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

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

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

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


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sat May  7 15:49:26 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 07:49:26 +1200
Subject: [governance] Faces of Privacy breaches, networked intrusion
 with Sony Play Station
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinWGdOV0SDvOo8k=reKkPz6Tmj+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTinWGdOV0SDvOo8k=reKkPz6Tmj+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinkV1PdQZpQ1VZ1xS-n+iohvoR0cA@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting. I could not open the second URL though as the
information/page has moved.

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
> The PlayStation Network has been shut down for more than two weeks now
> as Sony scrambles to rectify an 'illegal and unauthorized intrusion'
> that has resulted in a significant theft of personal information
>
> Play by Play: Sony's Struggles on Breach
> Wall Street Journal
> Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704810504576307322759299038.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read
>
> Interactive Graphic explaining the affected accounts etc:
> http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-NU800_GAMES_G_20110506210902.jpg
> Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703992704576305412581285414.html?mod=ITP_pageone_2#project%3DTHISWEEKD1105%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
Sala

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

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

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sat May  7 16:10:27 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 01:10:27 +0500
Subject: [governance] Faces of Privacy breaches, networked intrusion
 with Sony Play Station
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinkV1PdQZpQ1VZ1xS-n+iohvoR0cA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTinWGdOV0SDvOo8k=reKkPz6Tmj+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinkV1PdQZpQ1VZ1xS-n+iohvoR0cA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimEsmL+JRPQ6WgAOR5cfzwnfd3K-Q@mail.gmail.com>

This link takes you to the detailed infographic:

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-NU800_GAMES_G_20110506210902.jpg

-- FOo

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting. I could not open the second URL though as the
> information/page has moved.
>
> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The PlayStation Network has been shut down for more than two weeks now
>> as Sony scrambles to rectify an 'illegal and unauthorized intrusion'
>> that has resulted in a significant theft of personal information
>>
>> Play by Play: Sony's Struggles on Breach
>> Wall Street Journal
>> Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704810504576307322759299038.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read
>>
>> Interactive Graphic explaining the affected accounts etc:
>> http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-NU800_GAMES_G_20110506210902.jpg
>> Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703992704576305412581285414.html?mod=ITP_pageone_2#project%3DTHISWEEKD1105%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive
>>
>> --
>> Regards.
>> --------------------------
>> Fouad
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sala
>
> "Stillness in the midst of the noise".
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  7 21:59:00 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 13:59:00 +1200
Subject: [governance] Greetings from Fiji!
Message-ID: <BANLkTikF=vdNVLgXSY9UMYwz=QRSth=x9g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi,

Greetings from Fiji! How is the recovery work in Japan? What is the
status of things there? It would be great to know what's happening in
Japan in terms of infrastructure, ICT etc? How is the work on the
ground?

Our prayers and thoughts are still with your people as you journey to
rebuild and mitigate the risks.

Warm Regards,

-- 
Sala

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

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun May  8 04:08:18 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 13:38:18 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
Message-ID: <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>

Although there has been no further discussion on the list on this 
subject, I submit below some text for  a possible IGC statement to the G 
8. Please comment and contribute.... parminder

(proposed draft starts)

    Basic courtesy stuff.....

    We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold
    a G8 Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in
    ........,with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8
    Summit regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that
    many heads of states of G 8 countries are expected to attend this
    meeting. The meeting is especially important since in the past G 8
    has set up the global agenda on many key issues, especially in the
    information society arena.

    We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet
    meeting is being organised which flies in the face of all canons of
    public policy making and public deliberations. It also jettisons the
    principle of multistakeholderism that has evolved globally,
    especially in the area of Internet governance. The proposed G 8
    Internet meeting is being organised by large industry players and
    the invitations, other than to involved government actors, have also
    largely gone to big businesses. We hear that invitations to the
    meeting are also linked to contribution of funds for it.

    Big business already have a disproportionately large influence on
    policy processes for them to require a dedicated meeting with top G
    8 leaders and officials to determine what should be the global
    agenda for Internet related policies. On the contrary, what is
    required is an audience with public interest actors, or civil
    society actors, who will bring to the table the real concerns of the
    people and different sections of the society in this area. We are
    afraid that the proposed meeting gives industry lobbying a brand new
    legitimate political image, which is a dangerous trend for global
    Internet governance, and in fact, for global governance, in general.

    It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
    essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the
    most powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global
    norm. This is most true for architectural and economic issues, while
    the global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It is
    therefore appropriate that G 8 countries engage with the same, and
    other issues, of Internet policies at the more democratic global
    forums where all countries are present at an equal footing. In this
    connection, there is the World Summit on the Information Society
    mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global Internet
    related issues. Multistakeholderism is an important part of these
    global IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent
    meeting a significant step backwards both for global democracy and
    for multistakeholderism.

    We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the
    proposed G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following
    the model of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support
    provided by the G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model
    for the IGF. This makes it even more stark and unacceptable that the
    proposed G 8 meeting be held in the planned manner.

    closing and salutations.....

(ends)

.......


.....................


On Thursday 05 May 2011 01:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:43:18 +0700, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>     Thanks to Wolfgang for this substantial report of history.
>
>     And thanks to Parminder for drawing the correct conclusion: Nobody
>     else will do it, speak up and remind those who forget the history
>     in this case, if Civil Society does not speak up, reminding the
>     (present representatives of governments) that their predecessors
>     achieved great things which they seem to forget.
>
>     How is this going to be organized? The major elements are in
>     Wolfgang's write-up; it has to be mad short, focused on what what
>     at the UN General Assembly setting the WSIS process on the way as
>     multi-stakeholder, and the Tunis commitments also BY THE
>     GOVERNMENTS PRESENT to the multi-stakeholder approach. And add
>     some achievements since (which?).
>
> There seems to be agreement that the IGC should respond (and I concur 
> with this).  I would like to invite Wolfgang or Parminder to volunteer 
> to write a first draft.  If they do not have time, I should be able to 
> put something together as a draft based on their contributions to the 
> list.
>
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *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
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110508/c94a5c0c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110508/c94a5c0c/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From avri at acm.org  Sun May  8 12:11:51 2011
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 12:11:51 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>

Hi,

In general I support this, though would recommend some edits.  thanks for getting the discussion started.

some possible recommendation below.


On 8 May 2011, at 04:08, parminder wrote:

> Although there has been no further discussion on the list on this subject, I submit below some text for  a possible IGC statement to the G 8. Please comment and contribute.... parminder 
> 
> (proposed draft starts)
> 
> Basic courtesy stuff.....
> We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8 Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........,with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many key issues, especially in the information society arena.

> We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet meeting is being organised which flies in the face of all canons of public policy making and public deliberations.

Recommend substituting: 

"flies in the face of all canons of public policy making and public deliberations"

with something like:

"is ignoring current best practice in public policy making."

> It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholderism that has evolved globally, especially in the area of

Recommend substituting: 

> principle of multistakeholderism 

with 

principle of multistakeholder participation

> Internet governance. The proposed G 8 Internet meeting is being organised by large industry players and the invitations, other than to involved government actors, have also largely gone to big businesses. We hear that invitations to the meeting are also linked to contribution of funds for it.

Recommend substituting with something like:

It appears that the G8 meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to industry and government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage between donations and invitations.

> Big business already have a disproportionately large influence on policy processes for them         to require a dedicated meeting with top G 8 leaders and officials to determine what should be the global agenda for Internet related policies.

Recommend substituting something like:

Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related policies is inappropriate.


> On the contrary, what is required is an audience with public interest actors, or civil society actors, who will bring to the table the real concerns of the people and different sections of the society in this area.

Recommend substituting something like:

What is required is a discussion that includes civil society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society, interests and concerns. 


> We are afraid that the proposed meeting gives industry lobbying a brand new legitimate political image, which         is a dangerous trend for global Internet governance, and in fact, for global governance, in general.
 

Recommend dropping this.


> It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global Internet related issues.


> Multistakeholderism is an important part of these global IG related processes.

Again recommend replacing Multistakeholderism with multistakeholder participation.

> We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a significant step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholderism.

Again recommend replacing Multistakeholderism with multistakeholder participation.

> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF.


> This makes it even more stark and unacceptable that the proposed G 8 meeting be held in the planned manner.

recommend replacing with something like:

The strong support that many of G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.


> closing and salutations.....
> (ends)
> …....
> 
> …..................
> 
> On Thursday 05 May 2011 01:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:43:18 +0700, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks to Wolfgang for this substantial report of history.
>> 
>> And thanks to Parminder for drawing the correct conclusion: Nobody else will do it, speak up and remind those who forget the history in this case, if Civil Society does not speak up, reminding the (present representatives of governments) that their predecessors achieved great things which they seem to forget.
>> 
>> How is this going to be organized? The major elements are in Wolfgang's write-up; it has to be mad short, focused on what what at the UN General Assembly setting the WSIS process on the way as multi-stakeholder, and the Tunis commitments also BY THE GOVERNMENTS PRESENT to the multi-stakeholder approach. And add some achievements since (which?).
>>  
>> There seems to be agreement that the IGC should respond (and I concur with this).  I would like to invite Wolfgang or Parminder to volunteer to write a first draft.  If they do not have time, I should be able to put something together as a draft based on their contributions to the list.
>> 
>>  
>> -- 
>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>> Project Coordinator 
>> Consumers International
>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change 
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.net
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
> <itfc_logo.png>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

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

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun May  8 13:31:54 2011
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 12:31:54 -0500
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4DC6D38A.1080208@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110508/5bf426b8/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  Sun May  8 17:30:53 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 18:30:53 -0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC6D38A.1080208@gmail.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
	<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
	<20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net>
	<4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
	<c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
	<4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
	<F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
	<4DC6D38A.1080208@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTim2URnev8=A=Dw3AQ=tAi8BZtD8iQ@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
proposed by Avri.

Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate the
message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what CS
has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net. Does
anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be in
these sites, the news may spread virally online.
What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?

Best,

Marília

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Thanks Parminder and Avri. This is an important statement to finish and
> deliver. I support the way it is going with Avri's edits.
> Best, Ginger
>
> *Ms. Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> *IGCBP Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> *The latest from Diplo...*Keep up with Diplo on Twitter. Follow
> @DiplomacyEdu <http://www.twitter.com/DiplomacyEdu> for all the news about
> our programmes, courses, research, events, and more!
>
>
>
>
> On 5/8/2011 11:11 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In general I support this, though would recommend some edits.  thanks for getting the discussion started.
>
> some possible recommendation below.
>
>
> On 8 May 2011, at 04:08, parminder wrote:
>
>
>  Although there has been no further discussion on the list on this subject, I submit below some text for  a possible IGC statement to the G 8. Please comment and contribute.... parminder
>
> (proposed draft starts)
>
> Basic courtesy stuff.....
> We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8 Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........,with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many key issues, especially in the information society arena.
>
>   We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet meeting is being organised which flies in the face of all canons of public policy making and public deliberations.
>
>  Recommend substituting:
>
> "flies in the face of all canons of public policy making and public deliberations"
>
> with something like:
>
> "is ignoring current best practice in public policy making."
>
>
>  It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholderism that has evolved globally, especially in the area of
>
>  Recommend substituting:
>
>
>  principle of multistakeholderism
>
>  with
>
> principle of multistakeholder participation
>
>
>  Internet governance. The proposed G 8 Internet meeting is being organised by large industry players and the invitations, other than to involved government actors, have also largely gone to big businesses. We hear that invitations to the meeting are also linked to contribution of funds for it.
>
>  Recommend substituting with something like:
>
> It appears that the G8 meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to industry and government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage between donations and invitations.
>
>
>  Big business already have a disproportionately large influence on policy processes for them         to require a dedicated meeting with top G 8 leaders and officials to determine what should be the global agenda for Internet related policies.
>
>  Recommend substituting something like:
>
> Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related policies is inappropriate.
>
>
>
>  On the contrary, what is required is an audience with public interest actors, or civil society actors, who will bring to the table the real concerns of the people and different sections of the society in this area.
>
>  Recommend substituting something like:
>
> What is required is a discussion that includes civil society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society, interests and concerns.
>
>
>
>  We are afraid that the proposed meeting gives industry lobbying a brand new legitimate political image, which         is a dangerous trend for global Internet governance, and in fact, for global governance, in general.
>
>
>
> Recommend dropping this.
>
>
>
>  It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global Internet related issues.
>
>   Multistakeholderism is an important part of these global IG related processes.
>
>  Again recommend replacing Multistakeholderism with multistakeholder participation.
>
>
>  We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a significant step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholderism.
>
>  Again recommend replacing Multistakeholderism with multistakeholder participation.
>
>
>  We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF.
>
>   This makes it even more stark and unacceptable that the proposed G 8 meeting be held in the planned manner.
>
>  recommend replacing with something like:
>
> The strong support that many of G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.
>
>
>
>  closing and salutations.....
> (ends)
> …....
>
> …..................
>
> On Thursday 05 May 2011 01:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>  On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:43:18 +0700, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks to Wolfgang for this substantial report of history.
>
> And thanks to Parminder for drawing the correct conclusion: Nobody else will do it, speak up and remind those who forget the history in this case, if Civil Society does not speak up, reminding the (present representatives of governments) that their predecessors achieved great things which they seem to forget.
>
> How is this going to be organized? The major elements are in Wolfgang's write-up; it has to be mad short, focused on what what at the UN General Assembly setting the WSIS process on the way as multi-stakeholder, and the Tunis commitments also BY THE GOVERNMENTS PRESENT to the multi-stakeholder approach. And add some achievements since (which?).
>
> There seems to be agreement that the IGC should respond (and I concur with this).  I would like to invite Wolfgang or Parminder to volunteer to write a first draft.  If they do not have time, I should be able to put something together as a draft based on their contributions to the list.
>
>
> --
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> 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
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
>  --
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOCwww.ITforChange.net
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
> <itfc_logo.png>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>


-- 
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/20110508/b2acff6e/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 May  8 17:41:58 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:41:58 +1200
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim2URnev8=A=Dw3AQ=tAi8BZtD8iQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
	<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
	<20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net>
	<4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
	<c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
	<4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
	<F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
	<4DC6D38A.1080208@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim2URnev8=A=Dw3AQ=tAi8BZtD8iQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikMUq4DKKvq0PeDkwQL6vTa4OzPbg@mail.gmail.com>

If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
to raise.

The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues.  These
are from the book, "The Tipping Point".  Thanks Parminder and Avri for
the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
strategy.

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
> proposed by Avri.
> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate the
> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what CS
> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net. Does
> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be in
> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
> Best,
> Marília
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Parminder and Avri. This is an important statement to finish and
>> deliver. I support the way it is going with Avri's edits.
>> Best, Ginger
>>
>> Ms. Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>> IGCBP Coordinator
>> DiploFoundation
>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>>
>> The latest from Diplo...Keep up with Diplo on Twitter.
>> Follow @DiplomacyEdu for all the news about our programmes, courses,
>> research, events, and more!
>>
>>
>> On 5/8/2011 11:11 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> In general I support this, though would recommend some edits.  thanks for
>> getting the discussion started.
>> some possible recommendation below.
>> On 8 May 2011, at 04:08, parminder wrote:
>>
>> Although there has been no further discussion on the list on this subject,
>> I submit below some text for  a possible IGC statement to the G 8. Please
>> comment and contribute.... parminder
>> (proposed draft starts)
>> Basic courtesy stuff.....
>> We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8
>> Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........,with a view
>> to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key global
>> Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8
>> countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially
>> important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many key
>> issues, especially in the information society arena.
>>
>> We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet meeting
>> is being organised which flies in the face of all canons of public policy
>> making and public deliberations.
>>
>> Recommend substituting:
>> "flies in the face of all canons of public policy making and public
>> deliberations"
>> with something like:
>> "is ignoring current best practice in public policy making."
>>
>> It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholderism that has evolved
>> globally, especially in the area of
>>
>> Recommend substituting:
>>
>> principle of multistakeholderism
>>
>> with
>> principle of multistakeholder participation
>>
>> Internet governance. The proposed G 8 Internet meeting is being organised
>> by large industry players and the invitations, other than to involved
>> government actors, have also largely gone to big businesses. We hear that
>> invitations to the meeting are also linked to contribution of funds for it.
>>
>> Recommend substituting with something like:
>> It appears that the G8 meeting is organized by large Industry with access
>> given only to industry and government actors.  We have also understood that
>> there is a linkage between donations and invitations.
>>
>> Big business already have a disproportionately large influence on policy
>> processes for them         to require a dedicated meeting with top G 8
>> leaders and officials to determine what should be the global agenda for
>> Internet related policies.
>>
>> Recommend substituting something like:
>> Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
>> government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting
>> with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet
>> related policies is inappropriate.
>>
>> On the contrary, what is required is an audience with public interest
>> actors, or civil society actors, who will bring to the table the real
>> concerns of the people and different sections of the society in this area.
>>
>> Recommend substituting something like:
>> What is required is a discussion that includes civil society actors, who
>> will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest derived from
>> a diversity of people's, of many sections of society, interests and
>> concerns.
>>
>> We are afraid that the proposed meeting gives industry lobbying a brand
>> new legitimate political image, which         is a dangerous trend for
>> global Internet governance, and in fact, for global governance, in general.
>>
>>
>> Recommend dropping this.
>>
>> It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially
>> a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations,
>> quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for
>> architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas
>> will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries
>> engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more
>> democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal
>> footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information
>> Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global Internet
>> related issues.
>>
>> Multistakeholderism is an important part of these global IG related
>> processes.
>>
>> Again recommend replacing Multistakeholderism with multistakeholder
>> participation.
>>
>> We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a significant step backwards both
>> for global democracy and for multistakeholderism.
>>
>> Again recommend replacing Multistakeholderism with multistakeholder
>> participation.
>>
>> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G 8
>> Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN
>> IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8 countries
>> for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF.
>>
>> This makes it even more stark and unacceptable that the proposed G 8
>> meeting be held in the planned manner.
>>
>> recommend replacing with something like:
>> The strong support that many of G8 countries, including your own, have
>> shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to
>> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners is
>> baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.
>>
>> closing and salutations.....
>> (ends)
>> …....
>> …..................
>> On Thursday 05 May 2011 01:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:43:18 +0700, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
>> Thanks to Wolfgang for this substantial report of history.
>> And thanks to Parminder for drawing the correct conclusion: Nobody else
>> will do it, speak up and remind those who forget the history in this case,
>> if Civil Society does not speak up, reminding the (present representatives
>> of governments) that their predecessors achieved great things which they
>> seem to forget.
>> How is this going to be organized? The major elements are in Wolfgang's
>> write-up; it has to be mad short, focused on what what at the UN General
>> Assembly setting the WSIS process on the way as multi-stakeholder, and the
>> Tunis commitments also BY THE GOVERNMENTS PRESENT to the multi-stakeholder
>> approach. And add some achievements since (which?).
>>
>> There seems to be agreement that the IGC should respond (and I concur with
>> this).  I would like to invite Wolfgang or Parminder to volunteer to write a
>> first draft.  If they do not have time, I should be able to put something
>> together as a draft based on their contributions to the list.
>>
>> --
>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>> Project Coordinator
>> Consumers International
>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
>> Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>> 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
>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
>> necessary.
>>
>> --
>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>> Executive Director
>> IT for Change
>> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
>> www.ITforChange.net
>> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
>> <itfc_logo.png>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>



-- 
Sala

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

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

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


From iza at anr.org  Sun May  8 21:36:31 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 10:36:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikMUq4DKKvq0PeDkwQL6vTa4OzPbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
 <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
 <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC6D38A.1080208@gmail.com>
 <BANLkTim2URnev8=A=Dw3AQ=tAi8BZtD8iQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikMUq4DKKvq0PeDkwQL6vTa4OzPbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=LJHSsiJsndRSTnsFL8v67qvmNXA@mail.gmail.com>

I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested edits
by Avri.

From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
oraganized by
French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of it.

I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.

izumi

2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
> to raise.
>
> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues.  These
> are from the book, "The Tipping Point".  Thanks Parminder and Avri for
> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
> strategy.
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
>> proposed by Avri.
>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate the
>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what CS
>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net. Does
>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be in
>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
>> Best,
>> Marília
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From iza at anr.org  Sun May  8 22:19:55 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 11:19:55 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: Greetings from Fiji!
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikF=vdNVLgXSY9UMYwz=QRSth=x9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTikF=vdNVLgXSY9UMYwz=QRSth=x9g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTim0-+SZoBDo2=Vbfg+0yJ6twWvRtw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Sara and all,

Thank you for reminding me of this important subject. We have organized a "tour"
to visit several devastated areas in the past week(s) and just came
back two days
ago. A total of more than 20 people took this tour, visited 10 cities.
The situation is quite diverse, and in general, recovery works are slow in small
cities in remote and rural areas than cities close to the central
large cities, of course.

But it also appears that those city governments who have better management
skills got faster or more effective recovery and receiving more support from
outside while those who lack these skills also lack sufficient support.

While telco claims that they have recovered most of the land-lines, devils are
in the details. Some city goverment offices are not yet equipped with PBX,
many relief shelters don't have phones for the office (only for residents),
many schools and shelters and other public facilities also do not have
telephone and/or Internet access.

If you have mobile, yes, you have basic connectivity. But that is not same
as having regular fixed lines, broaband service connected to your office LAN.

The lack of consistent ICT recovery policy by the government is evident,
both local and central. Most are still "patch work" waiting for the requests
to come. Same goes true for industry and some academia. Of course, there
are people who are voluntarily trying to analyze and offer proactive support,
they remain minority.

Both centralized commands and decentralized coordination or systematic
approach are needed, at least in my view, for quick and effective
recovery support,
but that is not there yet.

To the credit of those working in the field, I am not criticizing them
directly, but
lack or preparedness, organized frameworks, are evident in a country where
vast natural disasters are not foreign. ICT folks should stand up or wake up
at least in Japan if they want to remain in the part of critical
infrastructure for
people and society.

izumi


2011/5/8 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
> Dear Izumi,
>
> Greetings from Fiji! How is the recovery work in Japan? What is the
> status of things there? It would be great to know what's happening in
> Japan in terms of infrastructure, ICT etc? How is the work on the
> ground?
>
> Our prayers and thoughts are still with your people as you journey to
> rebuild and mitigate the risks.
>
> 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


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sun May  8 22:34:36 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 14:34:36 +1200
Subject: [governance] Re: Greetings from Fiji!
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim0-+SZoBDo2=Vbfg+0yJ6twWvRtw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTikF=vdNVLgXSY9UMYwz=QRSth=x9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim0-+SZoBDo2=Vbfg+0yJ6twWvRtw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikge_g00ETuJajCe967jAC+6KJBvQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi,

Thank you for this brief sumamry of the issues as it helps us
understand the issues in Japan better. I think that what is happening
in Japan raises critical issues for the rest of the countries. This
should form part of critical information infrastructure protection
plan (CIIP).

It will be great for countries to introspectively examine their
systems. It has been said that there is a ring of fire and the
earthquake in Christchurch, the earthquake in Japan all occurred
around the ring and some scientists predict that there may be a future
earthquake in South America.

ICT Strategy planning and internet governance must canvass some of
these topical issues. From Izumi's report, without any detailed
economic analysis or econometric modelling of sorts, one can
hypothesise that it can shunt economic growth not only because of the
direct cost and impact on human lives, trade etc but the unseen cost.


Well wishes to Japan and your people as you work towards complete recovery.

Kind Regards,

Sala


On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> Dear Sara and all,
>
> Thank you for reminding me of this important subject. We have organized a "tour"
> to visit several devastated areas in the past week(s) and just came
> back two days
> ago. A total of more than 20 people took this tour, visited 10 cities.
> The situation is quite diverse, and in general, recovery works are slow in small
> cities in remote and rural areas than cities close to the central
> large cities, of course.
>
> But it also appears that those city governments who have better management
> skills got faster or more effective recovery and receiving more support from
> outside while those who lack these skills also lack sufficient support.
>
> While telco claims that they have recovered most of the land-lines, devils are
> in the details. Some city goverment offices are not yet equipped with PBX,
> many relief shelters don't have phones for the office (only for residents),
> many schools and shelters and other public facilities also do not have
> telephone and/or Internet access.
>
> If you have mobile, yes, you have basic connectivity. But that is not same
> as having regular fixed lines, broaband service connected to your office LAN.
>
> The lack of consistent ICT recovery policy by the government is evident,
> both local and central. Most are still "patch work" waiting for the requests
> to come. Same goes true for industry and some academia. Of course, there
> are people who are voluntarily trying to analyze and offer proactive support,
> they remain minority.
>
> Both centralized commands and decentralized coordination or systematic
> approach are needed, at least in my view, for quick and effective
> recovery support,
> but that is not there yet.
>
> To the credit of those working in the field, I am not criticizing them
> directly, but
> lack or preparedness, organized frameworks, are evident in a country where
> vast natural disasters are not foreign. ICT folks should stand up or wake up
> at least in Japan if they want to remain in the part of critical
> infrastructure for
> people and society.
>
> izumi
>
>
> 2011/5/8 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>> Dear Izumi,
>>
>> Greetings from Fiji! How is the recovery work in Japan? What is the
>> status of things there? It would be great to know what's happening in
>> Japan in terms of infrastructure, ICT etc? How is the work on the
>> ground?
>>
>> Our prayers and thoughts are still with your people as you journey to
>> rebuild and mitigate the risks.
>>
>> Warm Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Sala
>



-- 
Sala

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

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

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


From aizu at anr.org  Sun May  8 22:37:41 2011
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 11:37:41 +0900
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <1FB9EC17-F0F5-447D-88B1-AD22DB1DA24C@uzh.ch>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net> <1FB9EC17-F0F5-447D-88B1-AD22DB1DA24C@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikOKvi5KUT9vk88S56qWsXwKrpvMg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Bill for the observation below.

I was considering to go, but at this point still not sure if I get
funding support.

Concern of Parminder and others are quite right. If they will not
provide any funding for this MAG meeting, then will there be
any funding support for the IGF in Kenya itself?

Should we prepare yet another statement of request/protest?

izumi


2011/5/5 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>:
> Hi
> On May 3, 2011, at 7:14 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> 2) There is no funding support for civil society MAG members from developing
> countries, unlike earlier times, and I expect most to them to be unable to
> attend. This puts a huge question-mark on the legitimacy of the preparatory
> process, especially from civil society point of view. I think we should
> raise this issue. I expect the room to be filled by non-government actors
> from developed countries, and obviously the conversation will be determined
> and lead by them (which, because of a variety of factors, do often happen in
> any case; it will simply be, shall I say, much worse this time).
>
> As the ITU is handling registration for both the WSIS Forum and the IGF, the
> names are folded into one file with no broken out list of consultation/MAG
> attendees on the IGF site per previous practice.  At present there are about
> 800 people registered, the overwhelming majority of them being from
> developing countries, especially from Africa, e.g. 40 from Ghana, 40 from
> Congo, 50 from Nigeria, etc.  The most heavily represented industrialized
> country by far is Switzerland with about 130, whereas there are four from
> Germany (of course, these numbers may change, and not everyone who
> registers ultimately comes). I would assume most of these folks are coming
> for the WSIS Forum rather than the IGF.  There are generally very few  IGF
> "usual suspects"  registered of any species.  As far as I can tell, IGC
> members include Anriette, Valeria, Adam, and myself (apologies to anyone
> whose name I missed, please inform).  Hopefully there will be a late rush of
> registrations, but at present it would seem that the consultation and MAG
> will have very light attendance, and if a lot of people from the government
> missions decide to come over that could affect things.  Needless to say,
> robust remote participation will be needed, assuming there is adequate
> logistical support.  We will be in the ILO which is a pretty unwired
> environment; if I recall correctly, at the WGIG meetings there six years ago
> there was no wifi and few electrical sockets for computers.  But ITU says
> they are bringing some equipment over so those of us who've organized
> workshops will at least be able to project Power Points etc.
> Bottom line, the RP needs to be nailed down.
> Cheers,
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> --Please note new email address--
>
> ***************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch
> www.williamdrake.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 divina.meigs at orange.fr  Sun May  8 23:56:52 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 05:56:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=LJHSsiJsndRSTnsFL8v67qvmNXA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C9ED32A4.20700%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Dear all

I can only confirm what you already know about this meeting. The French
government has a very closed approach to the issue, as can be witnessed by
the recent creation of the "conseil national du numérique", only composed of
business, despite some outcries from different quarters. No
multistakeholderism here.

It would be important to translate the statement in French nonetheless and
to send it to La Quadrature du cercle but also to Le Monde interactif and
other online newspapers. Maybe some other French members on this list can
help...  

Best
Divina 


Le 09/05/11 03:36, « Izumi AIZU » <iza at anr.org> a écrit :

> I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested edits
> by Avri.
> 
> From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
> oraganized by
> French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of it.
> 
> I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
> to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.
> 
> izumi
> 
> 2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
>> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
>> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
>> to raise.
>> 
>> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
>> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
>> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues.  These
>> are from the book, "The Tipping Point".  Thanks Parminder and Avri for
>> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
>> strategy.
>> 
>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
>>> proposed by Avri.
>>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate the
>>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what CS
>>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
>>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
>>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net. Does
>>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be in
>>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
>>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
>>> Best,
>>> Marília
>>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  9 00:29:14 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 12:29:14 +0800
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org>

Thanks Parminder and Avri.  Here's a consolidated draft with Avri's edits.

    Basic courtesy stuff.....

    We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8
    Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in
........,with a view
    to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key
global
    Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8
    countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially
    important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many key
    issues, especially in the information society arena.

    We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet
meeting is
    being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public
policy making.
    It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation
that has evolved
    globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears
that the G8
    meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to
industry and
    government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage
between
    donations and invitations.

    Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
    government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated
meeting
    with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for
Internet related
    policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that
includes civil
    society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global
public interest
    derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society,
interests and
    concerns.

    It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
essentially a
    global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful
nations,
    quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for
    architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other
areas
    will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries
    engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more
    democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal
    footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the
Information
    Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global
Internet
    related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part
of these global
    IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a
significant
    step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder
    participation.

    We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the
proposed G 8
    Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of
the UN
    IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8
countries
    for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong
support that
    many of G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full
multistakeholder
    participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to
vested interests
    of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to
many of
    the users of the Internet.

    closing and salutations.....

-- 

*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_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/1ace1324/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/1ace1324/attachment.bin>

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon May  9 00:37:53 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 07:37:53 +0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
 <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
 <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTik4fLK=VC3NEOKpnJKW-GToNLXXvg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> Thanks Parminder and Avri.  Here's a consolidated draft with Avri's edits.
>
>     Basic courtesy stuff.....
>
>     We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8
>     Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........,with a
> view
>     to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key
> global
>     Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8
>     countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially
>     important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many key
>     issues, especially in the information society arena.
>
>     We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet meeting
> is
>     being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public policy
> making.
>     It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that
> has evolved
>     globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears that
> the G8
>     meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to
> industry and
>     government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage
> between
>     donations and invitations.
>
>     Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
>     government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated
> meeting
>     with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet
> related
>     policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that
> includes civil
>     society actors

<insert>
and the Internet technical community
</insert>





, who will bring to the table the concerns of global
> public interest
>     derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society,
> interests and
>     concerns.
>
>     It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
> essentially a
>     global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful
> nations,
>     quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for
>     architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other
> areas
>     will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries
>     engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more
>     democratic global forums where all countries

dlete "countries" above

and insert "stakeholders"

and I will be happy with the draft as edited by Avri.



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon May  9 00:51:36 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 10:21:36 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik4fLK=VC3NEOKpnJKW-GToNLXXvg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <BANLkTik4fLK=VC3NEOKpnJKW-GToNLXXvg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DC772D8.9030408@itforchange.net>



On Monday 09 May 2011 10:07 AM, McTim wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm<jeremy at ciroap.org>  wrote:
>>      concerns.
>>
>>      It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
>> essentially a
>>      global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful
>> nations,
>>      quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for
>>      architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other
>> areas
>>      will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries
>>      engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more
>>      democratic global forums where all countries
> dlete "countries" above
>
> and insert "stakeholders"
>
> and I will be happy with the draft as edited by Avri.

Equal participation of all countries and multi-stakeholder participation 
are both important issues, and one cannot replace the other. I made it 
clear before the start of the drafting exercise that I am not ready to 
go with a statement that just calls for multistakeholder participation, 
and is silent on equal participation of all countries. Therefore i cant 
agree with the edit of the text suggested by McTim.

Parminder

>
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/167018c2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/167018c2/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  9 00:55:28 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 10:25:28 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik4fLK=VC3NEOKpnJKW-GToNLXXvg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <BANLkTik4fLK=VC3NEOKpnJKW-GToNLXXvg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DC773C0.20409@itforchange.net>



On Monday 09 May 2011 10:07 AM, McTim wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm<jeremy at ciroap.org>  wrote:
>> Thanks Parminder and Avri.  Here's a consolidated draft with Avri's edits.
>> SNIP
>>
>>      Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
>>      government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated
>> meeting
>>      with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet
>> related
>>      policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that
>> includes civil
>>      society actors
> <insert>
> and the Internet technical community
> </insert>
>




>







>
> , who will bring to the table the concerns of global
>> public interest
>>      derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society,
>> interests and
>>      concerns.
>>
>>      It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
>> essentially a
>>      global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful
>> nations,
>>      quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for
>>      architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other
>> areas
>>      will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries
>>      engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more
>>      democratic global forums where all countries
> dlete "countries" above
>
> and insert "stakeholders"
>
> and I will be happy with the draft as edited by Avri.
>
>
Lets not start that old debate again. If you mean tech community which 
is involved with public interest advocacy - you for instance - then it 
is already included when we say 'include civil society', if they are 
serving big business and representing their interests, it is hardly in 
keeping with the principal thrust of this submission to push for greater 
inclusion of them. parminder

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/c3ac4db4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/c3ac4db4/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  9 00:55:05 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 07:55:05 +0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC772D8.9030408@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
 <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
 <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org>
 <BANLkTik4fLK=VC3NEOKpnJKW-GToNLXXvg@mail.gmail.com> <4DC772D8.9030408@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <BANLkTik4cCuGfuVBMV1eDtSvdGu49jjq5w@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:51 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Monday 09 May 2011 10:07 AM, McTim wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
>      concerns.
>
>     It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
> essentially a
>     global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful
> nations,
>     quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for
>     architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other
> areas
>     will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries
>     engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more
>     democratic global forums where all countries
>
>  dlete "countries" above
>
> and insert "stakeholders"
>
> and I will be happy with the draft as edited by Avri.
>
>
> Equal participation of all countries and multi-stakeholder participation
> are both important issues, and one cannot replace the other. I made it clear
> before the start of the drafting exercise that I am not ready to go with a
> statement that just calls for multistakeholder participation, and is silent
> on equal participation of all countries. Therefore i cant agree with the
> edit of the text suggested by McTim.
>


I thought that "stakeholders" included governments under its umbrella.  How
about "all stakeholders" insteead?


-- 
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/20110509/caf2afe3/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  Mon May  9 01:02:27 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 10:32:27 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik4cCuGfuVBMV1eDtSvdGu49jjq5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <BANLkTik4fLK=VC3NEOKpnJKW-GToNLXXvg@mail.gmail.com> <4DC772D8.9030408@itforchange.net> <BANLkTik4cCuGfuVBMV1eDtSvdGu49jjq5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DC77563.80301@itforchange.net>



On Monday 09 May 2011 10:25 AM, McTim wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:51 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Monday 09 May 2011 10:07 AM, McTim wrote:
>>     On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm<jeremy at ciroap.org>  <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>  wrote:
>>>          concerns.
>>>
>>>          It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
>>>     essentially a
>>>          global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful
>>>     nations,
>>>          quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for
>>>          architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other
>>>     areas
>>>          will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries
>>>          engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more
>>>          democratic global forums where all countries
>>     dlete "countries" above
>>
>>     and insert "stakeholders"
>>
>>     and I will be happy with the draft as edited by Avri.
>
>     Equal participation of all countries and multi-stakeholder
>     participation are both important issues, and one cannot replace
>     the other. I made it clear before the start of the drafting
>     exercise that I am not ready to go with a statement that just
>     calls for multistakeholder participation, and is silent on equal
>     participation of all countries. Therefore i cant agree with the
>     edit of the text suggested by McTim.
>
>
>
> I thought that "stakeholders" included governments under its umbrella. 
>  How about "all stakeholders" insteead?

We are not issuing generic statements, but objecting to clear 'wrongs' 
done. One if the private sector heaviness, and thus we describe the 
problem and tell them what should be done. Second, and this requires 
your close attention, is the problem that 8 most powerful countries 
cannot between them cannot try to decide on what largely concerns the 
whole world, and thus we say, all countries have to be there. parminder

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

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/8c6bdefa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/8c6bdefa/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  9 01:22:30 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 08:22:30 +0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC773C0.20409@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
 <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
 <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org>
 <BANLkTik4fLK=VC3NEOKpnJKW-GToNLXXvg@mail.gmail.com> <4DC773C0.20409@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikC4YMR3vuzJ-_8JGYCz-i2cZzGyA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:55 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Monday 09 May 2011 10:07 AM, McTim wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
>  Thanks Parminder and Avri.  Here's a consolidated draft with Avri's edits.
> SNIP
>
>     Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
>     government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated
> meeting
>     with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet
> related
>     policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that
> includes civil
>     society actors
>
>  <insert>
> and the Internet technical community
> </insert>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  , who will bring to the table the concerns of global
>
>  public interest
>     derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society,
> interests and
>     concerns.
>
>     It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
> essentially a
>     global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful
> nations,
>     quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for
>     architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other
> areas
>     will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries
>     engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more
>     democratic global forums where all countries
>
>  dlete "countries" above
>
> and insert "stakeholders"
>
> and I will be happy with the draft as edited by Avri.
>
>
>
>  Lets not start that old debate again. If you mean tech community which is
> involved with public interest advocacy - you for instance - then it is
> already included when we say 'include civil society',
>


I thought you denied that the tech community was part of CS?


 if they are serving big business and representing their interests, it is
> hardly in keeping with the principal thrust of this submission to push for
> greater inclusion of them.
>

I thought that including everybody was the point?


-- 
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/20110509/86be068c/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 May  9 01:30:02 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 08:30:02 +0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC77563.80301@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
 <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
 <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org>
 <BANLkTik4fLK=VC3NEOKpnJKW-GToNLXXvg@mail.gmail.com> <4DC772D8.9030408@itforchange.net>
 <BANLkTik4cCuGfuVBMV1eDtSvdGu49jjq5w@mail.gmail.com> <4DC77563.80301@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=rz8a4t2Vd0W0_7vp9Xt7V59A7Ew@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:02 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

<snip>


>  I thought that "stakeholders" included governments under its umbrella.
>  How about "all stakeholders" insteead?
>
>
> We are not issuing generic statements, but objecting to clear 'wrongs'
> done. One if the private sector heaviness, and thus we describe the problem
> and tell them what should be done. Second, and this requires your close
> attention, is the problem that 8 most powerful countries cannot between them
> cannot try to decide on what largely concerns the whole world, and thus we
> say, all countries have to be there.
>

Are we complaining about PS heaviness or G8 government heaviness?

To my mind this meeting is NOT "PS-led" but instead some kind of Sarkozy
(and pals) politically motivated shakedown.  That's what we should be
complaining about IMO!!

-- 
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/20110509/386767c4/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  Mon May  9 02:36:29 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 15:36:29 +0900
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikOKvi5KUT9vk88S56qWsXwKrpvMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
 <1FB9EC17-F0F5-447D-88B1-AD22DB1DA24C@uzh.ch>
 <BANLkTikOKvi5KUT9vk88S56qWsXwKrpvMg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240804c9ed10edee06@[192.168.1.160]>

I think it would be a good idea if our MAG 
members or the coordinators found out what the 
status of the consultation is.

Has the MAG been renewed?  Does it exist?  What 
expectations for renewal?  If renewed will there 
be financial support for civil society members 
(it should be all CS members and not just 
developing country:  location has little to do 
with access to funds.)

Will both consultation days be open?

What's the agenda?

Has the SG appointed a Chair (or has a process 
for appointing a chair been agreed)?

Any schedule of further consultations during the year?

(BTW, I will kind of be on holiday in Geneva, not 
sure I'll attend all meetings, speak, send 
reports, etc.)

Thanks,

Adam




>Thanks Bill for the observation below.
>
>I was considering to go, but at this point still not sure if I get
>funding support.
>
>Concern of Parminder and others are quite right. If they will not
>provide any funding for this MAG meeting, then will there be
>any funding support for the IGF in Kenya itself?
>
>Should we prepare yet another statement of request/protest?
>
>izumi
>
>
>2011/5/5 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>:
>>  Hi
>>  On May 3, 2011, at 7:14 AM, parminder wrote:
>>
>>  2) There is no funding support for civil society MAG members from developing
>>  countries, unlike earlier times, and I expect most to them to be unable to
>>  attend. This puts a huge question-mark on the legitimacy of the preparatory
>>  process, especially from civil society point of view. I think we should
>>  raise this issue. I expect the room to be filled by non-government actors
>>  from developed countries, and obviously the conversation will be determined
>>  and lead by them (which, because of a variety of factors, do often happen in
>>  any case; it will simply be, shall I say, much worse this time).
>>
>>  As the ITU is handling registration for both the WSIS Forum and the IGF, the
>>  names are folded into one file with no broken out list of consultation/MAG
>>  attendees on the IGF site per previous practice.  At present there are about
>>  800 people registered, the overwhelming majority of them being from
>>  developing countries, especially from Africa, e.g. 40 from Ghana, 40 from
>>  Congo, 50 from Nigeria, etc.  The most heavily represented industrialized
>>  country by far is Switzerland with about 130, whereas there are four from
>>  Germany (of course, these numbers may change, and not everyone who
>>  registers ultimately comes). I would assume most of these folks are coming
>>  for the WSIS Forum rather than the IGF.  There are generally very few  IGF
>>  "usual suspects"  registered of any species.  As far as I can tell, IGC
>>  members include Anriette, Valeria, Adam, and myself (apologies to anyone
>>  whose name I missed, please inform).  Hopefully there will be a late rush of
>>  registrations, but at present it would seem that the consultation and MAG
>>  will have very light attendance, and if a lot of people from the government
>>  missions decide to come over that could affect things.  Needless to say,
>>  robust remote participation will be needed, assuming there is adequate
>>  logistical support.  We will be in the ILO which is a pretty unwired
>>  environment; if I recall correctly, at the WGIG meetings there six years ago
>>  there was no wifi and few electrical sockets for computers.  But ITU says
>>  they are bringing some equipment over so those of us who've organized
>>  workshops will at least be able to project Power Points etc.
>>  Bottom line, the RP needs to be nailed down.
>>  Cheers,
>>  Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  --Please note new email address--
>>
>>  ***************************************************
>>  William J. Drake
>>  International Fellow
>>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>  University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>  william.drake at uzh.ch
>>  www.williamdrake.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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Mon May  9 03:31:55 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 09:31:55 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu>

Hi,

thank you, Parminder, for writing the first draft, and thank you, Avri,
for editing the text. I fully support Avri's version of the draft. There
is only one small change I like to quibble with:

Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
 > government bureaucracies.

Parminder suggested policy processes, Avri changed it to government 
bureaucracies. I find Avri's change too narrow and would therefore 
suggest public policy processes.

jeanette

On 08.05.2011 18:11, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In general I support this, though would recommend some edits.  thanks
> for getting the discussion started.
>
> some possible recommendation below.
>
>
> On 8 May 2011, at 04:08, parminder wrote:
>
>> Although there has been no further discussion on the list on this
>> subject, I submit below some text for  a possible IGC statement to
>> the G 8. Please comment and contribute.... parminder
>>
>> (proposed draft starts)
>>
>> Basic courtesy stuff..... We understand that the French Presidency
>> of the G8 proposes to hold a G8 Internet meeting, immediately prior
>> to the G8 Summit in ........,with a view to prepare or influence
>> the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key global Internet issues.
>> We also understand that many heads of states of G 8 countries are
>> expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially
>> important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on
>> many key issues, especially in the information society arena.
>
>> We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet
>> meeting is being organised which flies in the face of all canons of
>> public policy making and public deliberations.
>
> Recommend substituting:
>
> "flies in the face of all canons of public policy making and public
> deliberations"
>
> with something like:
>
> "is ignoring current best practice in public policy making."
>
>> It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholderism that has
>> evolved globally, especially in the area of
>
> Recommend substituting:
>
>> principle of multistakeholderism
>
> with
>
> principle of multistakeholder participation
>
>> Internet governance. The proposed G 8 Internet meeting is being
>> organised by large industry players and the invitations, other than
>> to involved government actors, have also largely gone to big
>> businesses. We hear that invitations to the meeting are also linked
>> to contribution of funds for it.
>
> Recommend substituting with something like:
>
> It appears that the G8 meeting is organized by large Industry with
> access given only to industry and government actors.  We have also
> understood that there is a linkage between donations and
> invitations.
>
>> Big business already have a disproportionately large influence on
>> policy processes for them         to require a dedicated meeting
>> with top G 8 leaders and officials to determine what should be the
>> global agenda for Internet related policies.
>
> Recommend substituting something like:
>
> Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
> government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated
> meeting with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda
> for Internet related policies is inappropriate.
>
>
>> On the contrary, what is required is an audience with public
>> interest actors, or civil society actors, who will bring to the
>> table the real concerns of the people and different sections of the
>> society in this area.
>
> Recommend substituting something like:
>
> What is required is a discussion that includes civil society actors,
> who will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest
> derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society,
> interests and concerns.
>
>
>> We are afraid that the proposed meeting gives industry lobbying a
>> brand new legitimate political image, which         is a dangerous
>> trend for global Internet governance, and in fact, for global
>> governance, in general.
>
>
> Recommend dropping this.
>
>
>> It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
>> essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the
>> most powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global
>> norm. This is most true for architectural and economic issues,
>> while the global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It
>> is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries engage with the same,
>> and other issues, of Internet policies at the more democratic
>> global forums where all countries are present at an equal footing.
>> In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information
>> Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global
>> Internet related issues.
>
>
>> Multistakeholderism is an important part of these global IG related
>> processes.
>
> Again recommend replacing Multistakeholderism with multistakeholder
> participation.
>
>> We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a significant step
>> backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholderism.
>
> Again recommend replacing Multistakeholderism with multistakeholder
> participation.
>
>> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the
>> proposed G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following
>> the model of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support
>> provided by the G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder
>> model for the IGF.
>
>
>> This makes it even more stark and unacceptable that the proposed G
>> 8 meeting be held in the planned manner.
>
> recommend replacing with something like:
>
> The strong support that many of G8 countries, including your own,
> have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current
> decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments'
> industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the
> users of the Internet.
>
>
>> closing and salutations..... (ends) …....
>>
>> …..................
>>
>> On Thursday 05 May 2011 01:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:43:18 +0700, Norbert
>>> Klein<nhklein at gmx.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks to Wolfgang for this substantial report of history.
>>>
>>> And thanks to Parminder for drawing the correct conclusion:
>>> Nobody else will do it, speak up and remind those who forget the
>>> history in this case, if Civil Society does not speak up,
>>> reminding the (present representatives of governments) that their
>>> predecessors achieved great things which they seem to forget.
>>>
>>> How is this going to be organized? The major elements are in
>>> Wolfgang's write-up; it has to be mad short, focused on what what
>>> at the UN General Assembly setting the WSIS process on the way as
>>> multi-stakeholder, and the Tunis commitments also BY THE
>>> GOVERNMENTS PRESENT to the multi-stakeholder approach. And add
>>> some achievements since (which?).
>>>
>>> There seems to be agreement that the IGC should respond (and I
>>> concur with this).  I would like to invite Wolfgang or Parminder
>>> to volunteer to write a first draft.  If they do not have time, I
>>> should be able to put something together as a draft based on
>>> their contributions to the list.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International
>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1
>>> Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
>>> Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email
>>> unless necessary.
>>>
>>
>> -- Parminder Jeet Singh Executive Director IT for Change NGO in
>> Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
>> www.ITforChange.net Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890.
>> Fax:+91-80-4146 1055 <itfc_logo.png>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile
>> and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and
> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon May  9 03:49:00 2011
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 17:49:00 +1000
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

My only problem with the text is that it tells them what we think they
should do without telling them why it would be advantageous to do it another
way. So its not likely to draw a great deal of attention.

To this end I would add another paragraph ­ perhaps after the ³it is also
pertinent² paragraph, along the lines of


The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are
global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need
to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of business, civil society
and technical interests. All of these inputs are essential to any sensible
and effective developments in this area, and we urge a more holistic
involvement of this wide range of key players.  Only in this way will we be
able to develop adequate solutions.

Ian Peter

From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Organization: Consumers International
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 12:29:14 +0800
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Avri <avri at acm.org>
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

   Thanks Parminder and Avri.  Here's a consolidated draft with Avri's
edits.
 
     Basic courtesy stuff.....
 
     We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a
G8
     Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........,with a
view
     to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key
global
     Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8
     countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is
especially
     important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many
key
     issues, especially in the information society arena.
 
     We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet
meeting is
     being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public
policy making.
     It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that
has evolved
     globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears
that the G8
     meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to
industry and
     government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage
between
     donations and invitations.
 
     Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
     government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated
meeting
     with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for
Internet related
     policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that
includes civil
     society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global
public interest
     derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society,
interests and
     concerns.
 
     It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
essentially a
     global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful
nations,
     quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true
for
     architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other
areas
     will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8
countries
     engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the
more
     democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal
     footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the
Information
     Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global
Internet
     related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part of
these global
     IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a
significant
     step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder
     participation.
 
     We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G
8
     Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the
UN
     IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8
countries
     for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong support
that
     many of G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full
multistakeholder
     participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested
interests
     of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to
many of
     the users of the Internet.
 
     closing and salutations.....
-- 
 
 

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 Tomorrow¹s Consumers
 CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong
 

Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the
issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
 http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
 
 Read our  email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
this email unless necessary.
 
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/0486d06f/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  Mon May  9 04:12:44 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 13:42:44 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4DC7A1FC.90405@itforchange.net>


On Monday 09 May 2011 01:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> My only problem with the text is that it tells them what we think they 
> should do without telling them why it would be advantageous to do it 
> another way. So its not likely to draw a great deal of attention.
Thanks for your comments, Ian. In general I have no problem with 
incorporating your additions, and I will leave it to others to decide on 
it. However, I must assert, with the risk of looking like trying to take 
the moral high-ground, that civil society's role is not just to give 
'technical' advice to others, about what is good for them or not. Our 
basic legitimacy is moral and representational... Also it is never 
clear, to 'whom' is something advantageous or not  - to the French 
President's own interest, the narrow interests of the French state, of 
the states of G * together, advantageous to whom?

So while an instrumental logic can be used to supplement our assertions, 
they should not be primary, and should in any case be used with great 
caution. We need to invlvoe all countries and all stakeholders not 
because it is advantageous to the principal parties being addressed 
here, (which in nay case they can refute by giving counter logic) but 
because that is the democratic and right way to do it. Period. That is 
what we stand for and struggle for.

>
> To this end I would add another paragraph -- perhaps after the "it is 
> also pertinent" paragraph, along the lines of
>
>
> The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments 
> are global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face 
> will need to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of 
> business, civil society and technical interests. All of these inputs 
> are essential to any sensible and effective developments in this area,
Begs the question, sensible and effective for whom ?? Some things can be 
quite sensible and effective to, say large incumbent businesses, or even 
to narrow economic interests of a particular nation state perched at a 
particular place in the global digital economy chain or network. that 
does not diminish our right and effort to seek democratic participation 
in policy making. Also, I dont like the terminology of 'solutions' as if 
there are value- and interest- neutral solutions waiting to be found by 
the right application of expertise in all policy matters.

For the same reason, I am not in agreement with one of Avri's edits 
where the call to adhere to canons or high principles of legitimate 
policy making is sought to be replace by best practises in policy 
making. This again suggests expertise and information-richness based 
policy models, but i think this is much more 'political' than that.

Just my views, for whatever they are worth :)

Parminder

> and we urge a more holistic involvement of this wide range of key 
> players.  Only in this way will we be able to develop adequate solutions.
>
> Ian Peter
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> *Organization: *Consumers International
> *Reply-To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> *Date: *Mon, 09 May 2011 12:29:14 +0800
> *To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Avri <avri at acm.org>
> *Subject: *Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
>
>    Thanks Parminder and Avri.  Here's a consolidated draft with Avri's 
> edits.
>
>      Basic courtesy stuff.....
>
>      We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to 
> hold a G8
>      Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in 
> ........,with a view
>      to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding 
> key global
>      Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8
>      countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is 
> especially
>      important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on 
> many key
>      issues, especially in the information society arena.
>
>      We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet 
> meeting is
>      being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public 
> policy making.
>      It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation 
> that has evolved
>      globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It 
> appears that the G8
>      meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to 
> industry and
>      government actors.  We have also understood that there is a 
> linkage between
>      donations and invitations.
>
>      Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
>      government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated 
> meeting
>      with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for 
> Internet related
>      policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that 
> includes civil
>      society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of 
> global public interest
>      derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of 
> society, interests and
>      concerns.
>
>      It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is 
> essentially a
>      global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful 
> nations,
>      quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most 
> true for
>      architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on 
> other areas
>      will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 
> countries
>      engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at 
> the more
>      democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal
>      footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the 
> Information
>      Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing 
> global Internet
>      related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important 
> part of these global
>      IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a 
> significant
>      step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder
>      participation.
>
>      We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the 
> proposed G 8
>      Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model 
> of the UN
>      IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8 
> countries
>      for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong 
> support that
>      many of G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full 
> multistakeholder
>      participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to 
> vested interests
>      of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable 
> to many of
>      the users of the Internet.
>
>      closing and salutations.....
> -- 
>
>
>
> *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
> _
> Read our  email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/8daafe88/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/8daafe88/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  9 04:52:37 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 11:52:37 +0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikEDg1hcEwb9m_QBH+AZye23csz0A@mail.gmail.com>

Ian's edit works for me...

Perhaps we can get ICC/BASIS to sign on to this statement as well?

-- 
Cheers,

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


On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> My only problem with the text is that it tells them what we think they
> should do without telling them why it would be advantageous to do it another
> way. So its not likely to draw a great deal of attention.
>
> To this end I would add another paragraph – perhaps after the “it is also
> pertinent” paragraph, along the lines of
>
>
> The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are
> global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need
> to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of business, civil society
> and technical interests. All of these inputs are essential to any sensible
> and effective developments in this area, and we urge a more holistic
> involvement of this wide range of key players.  Only in this way will we be
> able to develop adequate solutions.
>
> Ian Peter
> ________________________________
> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Organization: Consumers International
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 12:29:14 +0800
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Avri <avri at acm.org>
> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
>
>    Thanks Parminder and Avri.  Here's a consolidated draft with Avri's
> edits.
>
>      Basic courtesy stuff.....
>
>      We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a
> G8
>      Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........,with a
> view
>      to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key
> global
>      Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8
>      countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is
> especially
>      important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many
> key
>      issues, especially in the information society arena.
>
>      We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet
> meeting is
>      being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public
> policy making.
>      It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that
> has evolved
>      globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears
> that the G8
>      meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to
> industry and
>      government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage
> between
>      donations and invitations.
>
>      Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
>      government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated
> meeting
>      with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for
> Internet related
>      policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that
> includes civil
>      society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global
> public interest
>      derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society,
> interests and
>      concerns.
>
>      It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
> essentially a
>      global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful
> nations,
>      quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true
> for
>      architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other
> areas
>      will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8
> countries
>      engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the
> more
>      democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal
>      footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the
> Information
>      Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global
> Internet
>      related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part of
> these global
>      IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a
> significant
>      step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder
>      participation.
>
>      We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G
> 8
>      Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the
> UN
>      IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8
> countries
>      for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong support
> that
>      many of G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full
> multistakeholder
>      participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested
> interests
>      of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to
> many of
>      the users of the Internet.
>
>      closing and salutations.....
> --
>
>
>
> 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
>
> Read our  email confidentiality notice
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
> this email unless necessary.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Mon May  9 04:57:13 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 10:57:13 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikEDg1hcEwb9m_QBH+AZye23csz0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <BANLkTikEDg1hcEwb9m_QBH+AZye23csz0A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DC7AC69.30107@wzb.eu>

For me as well.


On 09.05.2011 10:52, McTim wrote:
> Ian's edit works for me...
>
> Perhaps we can get ICC/BASIS to sign on to this statement as well?

Yes, it would be good to ask them (but I can easily imagine paragraphs 
they would want to be deleted).
jeanette
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  9 05:09:19 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 17:09:19 +0800
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC7AC69.30107@wzb.eu>
References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <BANLkTikEDg1hcEwb9m_QBH+AZye23csz0A@mail.gmail.com> <4DC7AC69.30107@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4DC7AF3F.6020106@ciroap.org>

On 09/05/11 16:57, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> For me as well.
>
>
> On 09.05.2011 10:52, McTim wrote:
>> Ian's edit works for me...
>>
>> Perhaps we can get ICC/BASIS to sign on to this statement as well?
>
> Yes, it would be good to ask them (but I can easily imagine paragraphs
> they would want to be deleted).

Marilia and I have a conference call with them this week, about a
workshop of theirs which they are hoping to merge with our workshop on
the Indian proposals for IGF outcomes (which we are resisting).  I can
raise this then.

-- 

*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_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/685e9183/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/685e9183/attachment.bin>

From marie.georges at noos.fr  Mon May  9 06:05:09 2011
From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 12:05:09 +0200
Subject: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C9ED32A4.20700%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <C9ED32A4.20700%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <F8700F3C-D7C7-470B-B150-8E2FAC07AF2C@noos.fr>


Dear all,
May I suggest you send the text in the form of  a "regular" press release through Reuters and Agence France Presse. In that case it would be useful to explain in few words what is the CPSR... since when and the different topics it deals with

Best to you
Marie
Le 9 mai 2011 à 05:56, Divina MEIGS a écrit :

> Dear all
> 
> I can only confirm what you already know about this meeting. The French
> government has a very closed approach to the issue, as can be witnessed by
> the recent creation of the "conseil national du numérique", only composed of
> business, despite some outcries from different quarters. No
> multistakeholderism here.
> 
> It would be important to translate the statement in French nonetheless and
> to send it to La Quadrature du cercle but also to Le Monde interactif and
> other online newspapers. Maybe some other French members on this list can
> help...  
> 
> Best
> Divina 
> 
> 
> Le 09/05/11 03:36, « Izumi AIZU » <iza at anr.org> a écrit :
> 
>> I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested edits
>> by Avri.
>> 
>> From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
>> oraganized by
>> French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of it.
>> 
>> I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
>> to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.
>> 
>> izumi
>> 
>> 2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>>> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
>>> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
>>> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
>>> to raise.
>>> 
>>> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
>>> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
>>> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues.  These
>>> are from the book, "The Tipping Point".  Thanks Parminder and Avri for
>>> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
>>> strategy.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
>>>> proposed by Avri.
>>>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate the
>>>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what CS
>>>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
>>>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
>>>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net. Does
>>>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be in
>>>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
>>>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
>>>> Best,
>>>> Marília
>>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Mon May  9 07:05:52 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 07:05:52 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=rz8a4t2Vd0W0_7vp9Xt7V59A7Ew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <BANLkTik4fLK=VC3NEOKpnJKW-GToNLXXvg@mail.gmail.com> <4DC772D8.9030408@itforchange.net> <BANLkTik4cCuGfuVBMV1eDtSvdGu49jjq5w@mail.gmail.com> <4DC77563.80301@itforchange.net> <BANLkTi=rz8a4t2Vd0W0_7vp9Xt7V59A7Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AF4A3B6A-7A3C-41C5-ADDF-4758C4632C63@ella.com>

Hi,

I tend to support Parminder.

It has become very difficult at time these days to distinguish, on the political level, the Internet Technical Community from the Business Community.  They do seem to march in lock step.

I would prefer to not see us dilute this statement by adding McTim's suggestion.  

a.


On 9 May 2011, at 01:30, McTim wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:02 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> 
>> I thought that "stakeholders" included governments under its umbrella.  How about "all stakeholders" insteead?
> 
> We are not issuing generic statements, but objecting to clear 'wrongs' done. One if the private sector heaviness, and thus we describe the problem and tell them what should be done. Second, and this requires your close attention, is the problem that 8 most powerful countries cannot between them cannot try to decide on what largely concerns the whole world, and thus we say, all countries have to be there. 
> 
> Are we complaining about PS heaviness or G8 government heaviness?
> 
> To my mind this meeting is NOT "PS-led" but instead some kind of Sarkozy (and pals) politically motivated shakedown.  That's what we should be complaining about IMO!!
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

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

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

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


From avri at acm.org  Mon May  9 07:06:52 2011
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 07:06:52 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=rz8a4t2Vd0W0_7vp9Xt7V59A7Ew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <BANLkTik4fLK=VC3NEOKpnJKW-GToNLXXvg@mail.gmail.com> <4DC772D8.9030408@itforchange.net> <BANLkTik4cCuGfuVBMV1eDtSvdGu49jjq5w@mail.gmail.com> <4DC77563.80301@itforchange.net> <BANLkTi=rz8a4t2Vd0W0_7vp9Xt7V59A7Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E15D6C9D-6A11-48A8-903C-1E93BEC489D7@acm.org>

Hi,

I tend to support Parminder.

It has become very difficult at time these days to distinguish, on the political level, the Internet Technical Community from the Business Community.  They do seem to march in lock step.

I would prefer to not see us dilute this statement by adding McTim's suggestion.  

a.


On 9 May 2011, at 01:30, McTim wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:02 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> 
>> I thought that "stakeholders" included governments under its umbrella.  How about "all stakeholders" insteead?
> 
> We are not issuing generic statements, but objecting to clear 'wrongs' done. One if the private sector heaviness, and thus we describe the problem and tell them what should be done. Second, and this requires your close attention, is the problem that 8 most powerful countries cannot between them cannot try to decide on what largely concerns the whole world, and thus we say, all countries have to be there. 
> 
> Are we complaining about PS heaviness or G8 government heaviness?
> 
> To my mind this meeting is NOT "PS-led" but instead some kind of Sarkozy (and pals) politically motivated shakedown.  That's what we should be complaining about IMO!!
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Mon May  9 07:19:38 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 07:19:38 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikEDg1hcEwb9m_QBH+AZye23csz0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <BANLkTikEDg1hcEwb9m_QBH+AZye23csz0A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <03F23BE5-6C2C-4885-934B-7C79AD855008@ella.com>

Hi,

I think it might be sufficient to only include IAN's first sentence.  I do not not personally think it is needed, and I think we should be arguing for civil society's inclusion at this.

I see no reason to go to ICC/Basis on this - as big businesses representatives, they are already included.  I also see no reason, as I mentioned before, to dilute this statement with technical interests.

a.

On 9 May 2011, at 04:52, McTim wrote:

> Ian's edit works for me...
> 
> Perhaps we can get ICC/BASIS to sign on to this statement as well?
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> My only problem with the text is that it tells them what we think they
>> should do without telling them why it would be advantageous to do it another
>> way. So its not likely to draw a great deal of attention.
>> 
>> To this end I would add another paragraph – perhaps after the “it is also
>> pertinent” paragraph, along the lines of
>> 
>> 
>> The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are
>> global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need
>> to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of business, civil society
>> and technical interests. All of these inputs are essential to any sensible
>> and effective developments in this area, and we urge a more holistic
>> involvement of this wide range of key players.  Only in this way will we be
>> able to develop adequate solutions.
>> 
>> Ian Peter
>> ________________________________
>> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>> Organization: Consumers International
>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>> Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 12:29:14 +0800
>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Avri <avri at acm.org>
>> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
>> 
>>    Thanks Parminder and Avri.  Here's a consolidated draft with Avri's
>> edits.
>> 
>>      Basic courtesy stuff.....
>> 
>>      We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a
>> G8
>>      Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........,with a
>> view
>>      to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key
>> global
>>      Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8
>>      countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is
>> especially
>>      important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many
>> key
>>      issues, especially in the information society arena.
>> 
>>      We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet
>> meeting is
>>      being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public
>> policy making.
>>      It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that
>> has evolved
>>      globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears
>> that the G8
>>      meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to
>> industry and
>>      government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage
>> between
>>      donations and invitations.
>> 
>>      Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
>>      government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated
>> meeting
>>      with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for
>> Internet related
>>      policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that
>> includes civil
>>      society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global
>> public interest
>>      derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society,
>> interests and
>>      concerns.
>> 
>>      It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
>> essentially a
>>      global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful
>> nations,
>>      quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true
>> for
>>      architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other
>> areas
>>      will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8
>> countries
>>      engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the
>> more
>>      democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal
>>      footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the
>> Information
>>      Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global
>> Internet
>>      related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part of
>> these global
>>      IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a
>> significant
>>      step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder
>>      participation.
>> 
>>      We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G
>> 8
>>      Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the
>> UN
>>      IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8
>> countries
>>      for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong support
>> that
>>      many of G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full
>> multistakeholder
>>      participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested
>> interests
>>      of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to
>> many of
>>      the users of the Internet.
>> 
>>      closing and salutations.....
>> --
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> Read our  email confidentiality notice
>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
>> this email unless necessary.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Mon May  9 07:21:18 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 07:21:18 -0400
Subject: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <F8700F3C-D7C7-470B-B150-8E2FAC07AF2C@noos.fr>
References: <C9ED32A4.20700%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <F8700F3C-D7C7-470B-B150-8E2FAC07AF2C@noos.fr>
Message-ID: <C445A49F-2847-43B1-84E0-96B73CCA63D8@ella.com>

Hi,

I a not sure why we want to explain CPSR, its relation is just as a place that host our mailing list.  I do not know how much is left of the organizations itself.

If anything we might explain IGC.

a.

On 9 May 2011, at 06:05, Marie GEORGES wrote:

> 
> Dear all,
> May I suggest you send the text in the form of  a "regular" press release through Reuters and Agence France Presse. In that case it would be useful to explain in few words what is the CPSR... since when and the different topics it deals with
> 
> Best to you
> Marie
> Le 9 mai 2011 à 05:56, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
> 
>> Dear all
>> 
>> I can only confirm what you already know about this meeting. The French
>> government has a very closed approach to the issue, as can be witnessed by
>> the recent creation of the "conseil national du numérique", only composed of
>> business, despite some outcries from different quarters. No
>> multistakeholderism here.
>> 
>> It would be important to translate the statement in French nonetheless and
>> to send it to La Quadrature du cercle but also to Le Monde interactif and
>> other online newspapers. Maybe some other French members on this list can
>> help...  
>> 
>> Best
>> Divina 
>> 
>> 
>> Le 09/05/11 03:36, « Izumi AIZU » <iza at anr.org> a écrit :
>> 
>>> I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested edits
>>> by Avri.
>>> 
>>> From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
>>> oraganized by
>>> French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of it.
>>> 
>>> I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
>>> to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.
>>> 
>>> izumi
>>> 
>>> 2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>>>> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
>>>> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
>>>> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
>>>> to raise.
>>>> 
>>>> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
>>>> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
>>>> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues.  These
>>>> are from the book, "The Tipping Point".  Thanks Parminder and Avri for
>>>> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
>>>> strategy.
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
>>>>> proposed by Avri.
>>>>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate the
>>>>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what CS
>>>>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
>>>>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
>>>>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net. Does
>>>>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be in
>>>>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
>>>>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Marília
>>>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  9 09:15:41 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:15:41 -0400
Subject: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C445A49F-2847-43B1-84E0-96B73CCA63D8@ella.com>
References: <C9ED32A4.20700%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
 <F8700F3C-D7C7-470B-B150-8E2FAC07AF2C@noos.fr>,<C445A49F-2847-43B1-84E0-96B73CCA63D8@ella.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B77@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Right, 2-3 sentences 'About IGC' with weblink
________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria [avri at ella.com]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 7:21 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting

Hi,

I a not sure why we want to explain CPSR, its relation is just as a place that host our mailing list.  I do not know how much is left of the organizations itself.

If anything we might explain IGC.

a.

On 9 May 2011, at 06:05, Marie GEORGES wrote:

>
> Dear all,
> May I suggest you send the text in the form of  a "regular" press release through Reuters and Agence France Presse. In that case it would be useful to explain in few words what is the CPSR... since when and the different topics it deals with
>
> Best to you
> Marie
> Le 9 mai 2011 à 05:56, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> I can only confirm what you already know about this meeting. The French
>> government has a very closed approach to the issue, as can be witnessed by
>> the recent creation of the "conseil national du numérique", only composed of
>> business, despite some outcries from different quarters. No
>> multistakeholderism here.
>>
>> It would be important to translate the statement in French nonetheless and
>> to send it to La Quadrature du cercle but also to Le Monde interactif and
>> other online newspapers. Maybe some other French members on this list can
>> help...
>>
>> Best
>> Divina
>>
>>
>> Le 09/05/11 03:36, « Izumi AIZU » <iza at anr.org> a écrit :
>>
>>> I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested edits
>>> by Avri.
>>>
>>> From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
>>> oraganized by
>>> French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of it.
>>>
>>> I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
>>> to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.
>>>
>>> izumi
>>>
>>> 2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>>>> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
>>>> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
>>>> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
>>>> to raise.
>>>>
>>>> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
>>>> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
>>>> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues.  These
>>>> are from the book, "The Tipping Point".  Thanks Parminder and Avri for
>>>> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
>>>> strategy.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
>>>>> proposed by Avri.
>>>>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate the
>>>>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what CS
>>>>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
>>>>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
>>>>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net. Does
>>>>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be in
>>>>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
>>>>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Marília
>>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

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

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

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

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  9 09:31:30 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:31:30 -0400
Subject: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B77@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C9ED32A4.20700%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
 <F8700F3C-D7C7-470B-B150-8E2FAC07AF2C@noos.fr>,<C445A49F-2847-43B1-84E0-96B73CCA63D8@ella.com>,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B77@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B78@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

And if I may agree with Marie that way to play is prep the press release version of the statement, and..release it. 

In which case, not just draft text but an outraged quote of Parminder, maybe a caucus co-chair, including words, like 'undemocratic,' 'threats to privacy and cybersecurity,' would be helpful. 

If we throw in a couple more key words, we'll get some play imho.

I mean, if Parminder, Jeremy or Izumi says something spontaneously quotable for inclusion in press release if not in statement text itself. 

Not our usual IGC style, but commenting on G8 meetings is not quite our norm either.   

Lee 

 
________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:15 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Subject: RE: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting

Right, 2-3 sentences 'About IGC' with weblink
________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria [avri at ella.com]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 7:21 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting

Hi,

I a not sure why we want to explain CPSR, its relation is just as a place that host our mailing list.  I do not know how much is left of the organizations itself.

If anything we might explain IGC.

a.

On 9 May 2011, at 06:05, Marie GEORGES wrote:

>
> Dear all,
> May I suggest you send the text in the form of  a "regular" press release through Reuters and Agence France Presse. In that case it would be useful to explain in few words what is the CPSR... since when and the different topics it deals with
>
> Best to you
> Marie
> Le 9 mai 2011 à 05:56, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> I can only confirm what you already know about this meeting. The French
>> government has a very closed approach to the issue, as can be witnessed by
>> the recent creation of the "conseil national du numérique", only composed of
>> business, despite some outcries from different quarters. No
>> multistakeholderism here.
>>
>> It would be important to translate the statement in French nonetheless and
>> to send it to La Quadrature du cercle but also to Le Monde interactif and
>> other online newspapers. Maybe some other French members on this list can
>> help...
>>
>> Best
>> Divina
>>
>>
>> Le 09/05/11 03:36, « Izumi AIZU » <iza at anr.org> a écrit :
>>
>>> I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested edits
>>> by Avri.
>>>
>>> From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
>>> oraganized by
>>> French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of it.
>>>
>>> I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
>>> to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.
>>>
>>> izumi
>>>
>>> 2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>>>> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
>>>> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
>>>> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
>>>> to raise.
>>>>
>>>> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
>>>> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
>>>> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues.  These
>>>> are from the book, "The Tipping Point".  Thanks Parminder and Avri for
>>>> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
>>>> strategy.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
>>>>> proposed by Avri.
>>>>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate the
>>>>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what CS
>>>>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
>>>>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
>>>>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net. Does
>>>>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be in
>>>>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
>>>>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Marília
>>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  9 09:33:35 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:33:35 -0400
Subject: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B78@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C9ED32A4.20700%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
 <F8700F3C-D7C7-470B-B150-8E2FAC07AF2C@noos.fr>,<C445A49F-2847-43B1-84E0-96B73CCA63D8@ella.com>,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B77@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B78@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B7A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

last thought of stage direction - if one of our Parisian friends provided a quote and agreed to be linguistically suitable local point of contact, then also during summit itself she/he could be...making more noise.

________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:31 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting

And if I may agree with Marie that way to play is prep the press release version of the statement, and..release it.

In which case, not just draft text but an outraged quote of Parminder, maybe a caucus co-chair, including words, like 'undemocratic,' 'threats to privacy and cybersecurity,' would be helpful.

If we throw in a couple more key words, we'll get some play imho.

I mean, if Parminder, Jeremy or Izumi says something spontaneously quotable for inclusion in press release if not in statement text itself.

Not our usual IGC style, but commenting on G8 meetings is not quite our norm either.

Lee


________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:15 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Subject: RE: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting

Right, 2-3 sentences 'About IGC' with weblink
________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria [avri at ella.com]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 7:21 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting

Hi,

I a not sure why we want to explain CPSR, its relation is just as a place that host our mailing list.  I do not know how much is left of the organizations itself.

If anything we might explain IGC.

a.

On 9 May 2011, at 06:05, Marie GEORGES wrote:

>
> Dear all,
> May I suggest you send the text in the form of  a "regular" press release through Reuters and Agence France Presse. In that case it would be useful to explain in few words what is the CPSR... since when and the different topics it deals with
>
> Best to you
> Marie
> Le 9 mai 2011 à 05:56, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> I can only confirm what you already know about this meeting. The French
>> government has a very closed approach to the issue, as can be witnessed by
>> the recent creation of the "conseil national du numérique", only composed of
>> business, despite some outcries from different quarters. No
>> multistakeholderism here.
>>
>> It would be important to translate the statement in French nonetheless and
>> to send it to La Quadrature du cercle but also to Le Monde interactif and
>> other online newspapers. Maybe some other French members on this list can
>> help...
>>
>> Best
>> Divina
>>
>>
>> Le 09/05/11 03:36, « Izumi AIZU » <iza at anr.org> a écrit :
>>
>>> I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested edits
>>> by Avri.
>>>
>>> From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
>>> oraganized by
>>> French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of it.
>>>
>>> I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
>>> to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.
>>>
>>> izumi
>>>
>>> 2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>>>> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
>>>> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
>>>> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
>>>> to raise.
>>>>
>>>> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
>>>> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
>>>> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues.  These
>>>> are from the book, "The Tipping Point".  Thanks Parminder and Avri for
>>>> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
>>>> strategy.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
>>>>> proposed by Avri.
>>>>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate the
>>>>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what CS
>>>>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
>>>>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
>>>>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net. Does
>>>>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be in
>>>>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
>>>>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Marília
>>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  9 09:45:07 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 19:15:07 +0530
Subject: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B7A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C9ED32A4.20700%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <F8700F3C-D7C7-470B-B150-8E2FAC07AF2C@noos.fr>,<C445A49F-2847-43B1-84E0-96B73CCA63D8@ella.com>,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B77@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B78@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B7A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4DC7EFE3.9080107@itforchange.net>

Yes, T-shirty slogans can work, something like


*Internet can work for democracy *,  But only if democracy works for the 
Internet

/(Include all voices, countries and stakeholders in taking decisions 
about the Internet/)

(ends)

Since Internet and the Middle east revolutions are still headline stuff. 
parminder


On Monday 09 May 2011 07:03 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> last thought of stage direction - if one of our Parisian friends provided a quote and agreed to be linguistically suitable local point of contact, then also during summit itself she/he could be...making more noise.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:31 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
>
> And if I may agree with Marie that way to play is prep the press release version of the statement, and..release it.
>
> In which case, not just draft text but an outraged quote of Parminder, maybe a caucus co-chair, including words, like 'undemocratic,' 'threats to privacy and cybersecurity,' would be helpful.
>
> If we throw in a couple more key words, we'll get some play imho.
>
> I mean, if Parminder, Jeremy or Izumi says something spontaneously quotable for inclusion in press release if not in statement text itself.
>
> Not our usual IGC style, but commenting on G8 meetings is not quite our norm either.
>
> Lee
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:15 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
> Subject: RE: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
>
> Right, 2-3 sentences 'About IGC' with weblink
> ________________________________________
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria [avri at ella.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 7:21 AM
> To: IGC
> Subject: Re: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
>
> Hi,
>
> I a not sure why we want to explain CPSR, its relation is just as a place that host our mailing list.  I do not know how much is left of the organizations itself.
>
> If anything we might explain IGC.
>
> a.
>
> On 9 May 2011, at 06:05, Marie GEORGES wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>> May I suggest you send the text in the form of  a "regular" press release through Reuters and Agence France Presse. In that case it would be useful to explain in few words what is the CPSR... since when and the different topics it deals with
>>
>> Best to you
>> Marie
>> Le 9 mai 2011 à 05:56, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> I can only confirm what you already know about this meeting. The French
>>> government has a very closed approach to the issue, as can be witnessed by
>>> the recent creation of the "conseil national du numérique", only composed of
>>> business, despite some outcries from different quarters. No
>>> multistakeholderism here.
>>>
>>> It would be important to translate the statement in French nonetheless and
>>> to send it to La Quadrature du cercle but also to Le Monde interactif and
>>> other online newspapers. Maybe some other French members on this list can
>>> help...
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Divina
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 09/05/11 03:36, « Izumi AIZU »<iza at anr.org>  a écrit :
>>>
>>>> I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested edits
>>>> by Avri.
>>>>
>>>>  From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
>>>> oraganized by
>>>> French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of it.
>>>>
>>>> I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
>>>> to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.
>>>>
>>>> izumi
>>>>
>>>> 2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>>>>> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
>>>>> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
>>>>> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
>>>>> to raise.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
>>>>> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
>>>>> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues.  These
>>>>> are from the book, "The Tipping Point".  Thanks Parminder and Avri for
>>>>> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
>>>>> strategy.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
>>>>>> proposed by Avri.
>>>>>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate the
>>>>>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what CS
>>>>>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
>>>>>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
>>>>>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net. Does
>>>>>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be in
>>>>>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
>>>>>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Marília
>>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/233a4876/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/233a4876/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Mon May  9 09:55:05 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:55:05 -0400
Subject: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC7EFE3.9080107@itforchange.net>
References: <C9ED32A4.20700%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <F8700F3C-D7C7-470B-B150-8E2FAC07AF2C@noos.fr>,<C445A49F-2847-43B1-84E0-96B73CCA63D8@ella.com>,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B77@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B78@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B7A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DC7EFE3.9080107@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <8779D8F6-83EC-4175-9E6C-176846733D22@ella.com>


Internet Governance cannot be just without civil society's voice.

or 

No -  to  Business control of the Internet.

or 

Stop  military-industrial complex control of the internet.


a.

On 9 May 2011, at 09:45, parminder wrote:

> Yes, T-shirty slogans can work, something like
> 
> 
> Internet can work for democracy ,  But only if democracy works for the Internet
> 
> (Include all voices, countries and stakeholders in taking decisions about the Internet)
> 
> (ends)
> 
> Since Internet and the Middle east revolutions are still headline stuff. parminder 
> 
> 
> On Monday 09 May 2011 07:03 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>> last thought of stage direction - if one of our Parisian friends provided a quote and agreed to be linguistically suitable local point of contact, then also during summit itself she/he could be...making more noise.
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: 
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu
>> ]
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:31 AM
>> To: 
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> Subject: RE: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
>> 
>> And if I may agree with Marie that way to play is prep the press release version of the statement, and..release it.
>> 
>> In which case, not just draft text but an outraged quote of Parminder, maybe a caucus co-chair, including words, like 'undemocratic,' 'threats to privacy and cybersecurity,' would be helpful.
>> 
>> If we throw in a couple more key words, we'll get some play imho.
>> 
>> I mean, if Parminder, Jeremy or Izumi says something spontaneously quotable for inclusion in press release if not in statement text itself.
>> 
>> Not our usual IGC style, but commenting on G8 meetings is not quite our norm either.
>> 
>> Lee
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: 
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu
>> ]
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:15 AM
>> To: 
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> ; Avri Doria
>> Subject: RE: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
>> 
>> Right, 2-3 sentences 'About IGC' with weblink
>> ________________________________________
>> From: 
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria [avri at ella.com
>> ]
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 7:21 AM
>> To: IGC
>> Subject: Re: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I a not sure why we want to explain CPSR, its relation is just as a place that host our mailing list.  I do not know how much is left of the organizations itself.
>> 
>> If anything we might explain IGC.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 9 May 2011, at 06:05, Marie GEORGES wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> May I suggest you send the text in the form of  a "regular" press release through Reuters and Agence France Presse. In that case it would be useful to explain in few words what is the CPSR... since when and the different topics it deals with
>>> 
>>> Best to you
>>> Marie
>>> Le 9 mai 2011 à 05:56, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Dear all
>>>> 
>>>> I can only confirm what you already know about this meeting. The French
>>>> government has a very closed approach to the issue, as can be witnessed by
>>>> the recent creation of the "conseil national du numérique", only composed of
>>>> business, despite some outcries from different quarters. No
>>>> multistakeholderism here.
>>>> 
>>>> It would be important to translate the statement in French nonetheless and
>>>> to send it to La Quadrature du cercle but also to Le Monde interactif and
>>>> other online newspapers. Maybe some other French members on this list can
>>>> help...
>>>> 
>>>> Best
>>>> Divina
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Le 09/05/11 03:36, « Izumi AIZU » 
>>>> <iza at anr.org>
>>>>  a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested edits
>>>>> by Avri.
>>>>> 
>>>>> From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
>>>>> oraganized by
>>>>> French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
>>>>> to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> izumi
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 
>>>>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
>>>>> :
>>>>> 
>>>>>> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
>>>>>> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
>>>>>> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
>>>>>> to raise.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
>>>>>> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
>>>>>> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues.  These
>>>>>> are from the book, "The Tipping Point".  Thanks Parminder and Avri for
>>>>>> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
>>>>>> strategy.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel 
>>>>>> <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
>>>>>>> proposed by Avri.
>>>>>>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate the
>>>>>>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what CS
>>>>>>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
>>>>>>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
>>>>>>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net. Does
>>>>>>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be in
>>>>>>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
>>>>>>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Marília
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>    
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>    
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>    
>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> 
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>    
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: 
>>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>    
>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> 
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>    
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>    
>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> 
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>    
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: 
>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> 
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> 
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: 
>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> 
>> Translate this email: 
>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> 
>> Translate this email: 
>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> 
>> Translate this email: 
>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> 
>> Translate this email: 
>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change 
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.net
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
> <itfc_logo.png>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

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

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon May  9 10:13:00 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 07:13:00 -0700
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC7A1FC.90405@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <517D09AE6832424594C36B3A23166735@userPC>

I would like to support Parminder's comments and overall analysis here.  
 
I think this issue should be put in the larger context of the broad
outsourcing of government policy making (this specific example is
particularly egregious since it isn't simply "outsourcing" but rather it
seems to be putting policy making in these crucial spheres "up for
auction").
 
In the Canadian and I believe other national contexts this "outsourcing of
government policy making" is a broad trend which began initially with the
destruction of government's internal capacity for research and policy
analysis on the basis of "cost-cutting".  When this proved impossible to
sustain in complex enviroments there was a broad shift to outsourcing these
requirements to private agencies -- mostly privatized think tanks to provide
this type of policy research and analysis.  Since these agencies were
directly funded by the government of the day their capacity to undertake
disinterested (or rather research and policy analysis in the "public
interest" or towards the general good) was of course fatally compromised.
 
Issues of truly massive financial significance and global reach such as
those involving the Internet (another example of course is the global
financial system) are of particular concern here since what is required are
global regulatory and policy making agencies sufficent to respond to the
scale and scope of the matters at hand.  
 
In the absence of these (as has been commented on repeatedly in this context
in this forum) the need doesn't disappear but the mode of response takes a
typical form at this stage of global development i.e. to turn to those "with
the greatest stake" -- the private corps to provide the advice and policy
direction required. The instrumentalities (including research and policy
analysis) which would allow governments individually or collectively to
undertake the required policy making simply don't exist nor do most of our
current G8 governments want them to exist for ideological reasons.
 
Guys (and gals) its not that the French government (or the Canadian
government in an earlier iteration) "forgot" to invite Civil Society to the
table it is that they see no need to bring CS to the table and there are no
institutions in most instances either at the naitonal level or at the global
level which are structured in such a way as to require this i.e. to support
"the public interest".
 
All of which is to say, the instance that Parminder is pointing to is not
isolated and it isn't accidental.
 
Mike
 
-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of parminder
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:13 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting




On Monday 09 May 2011 01:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: 

My only problem with the text is that it tells them what we think they
should do without telling them why it would be advantageous to do it another
way. So its not likely to draw a great deal of attention.


Thanks for your comments, Ian. In general I have no problem with
incorporating your additions, and I will leave it to others to decide on it.
However, I must assert, with the risk of looking like trying to take the
moral high-ground, that civil society's role is not just to give 'technical'
advice to others, about what is good for them or not. Our basic legitimacy
is moral and representational... Also it is never clear, to 'whom' is
something advantageous or not  - to the French President's own interest, the
narrow interests of the French state, of the states of G * together,
advantageous to whom?

So while an instrumental logic can be used to supplement our assertions,
they should not be primary, and should in any case be used with great
caution. We need to invlvoe all countries and all stakeholders not because
it is advantageous to the principal parties being addressed here, (which in
nay case they can refute by giving counter logic) but because that is the
democratic and right way to do it. Period. That is what we stand for and
struggle for. 




To this end I would add another paragraph - perhaps after the "it is also
pertinent" paragraph, along the lines of


The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are
global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need
to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of business, civil society
and technical interests. All of these inputs are essential to any sensible
and effective developments in this area,

Begs the question, sensible and effective for whom ?? Some things can be
quite sensible and effective to, say large incumbent businesses, or even to
narrow economic interests of a particular nation state perched at a
particular place in the global digital economy chain or network. that does
not diminish our right and effort to seek democratic participation in policy
making. Also, I dont like the terminology of 'solutions' as if there are
value- and interest- neutral solutions waiting to be found by the right
application of expertise in all policy matters. 

For the same reason, I am not in agreement with one of Avri's edits where
the call to adhere to canons or high principles of legitimate policy making
is sought to be replace by best practises in policy making. This again
suggests expertise and information-richness based policy models, but i think
this is much more 'political' than that.

Just my views, for whatever they are worth :)

Parminder 



and we urge a more holistic involvement of this wide range of key players.
Only in this way will we be able to develop adequate solutions.

Ian Peter

  _____  

From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Organization: Consumers International
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 12:29:14 +0800
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Avri <avri at acm.org>
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

   Thanks Parminder and Avri.  Here's a consolidated draft with Avri's
edits.
 
     Basic courtesy stuff.....
 
     We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a
G8
     Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........,with a
view
     to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key
global
     Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8
     countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is
especially
     important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many
key
     issues, especially in the information society arena.
 
     We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet
meeting is
     being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public
policy making.
     It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that
has evolved
     globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears
that the G8
     meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to
industry and
     government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage
between
     donations and invitations.
 
     Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
     government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated
meeting
     with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for
Internet related
     policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that
includes civil
     society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global
public interest
     derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society,
interests and
     concerns.
 
     It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
essentially a
     global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful
nations,
     quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true
for
     architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other
areas
     will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8
countries
     engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the
more
     democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal
     footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the
Information
     Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global
Internet
     related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part of
these global
     IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a
significant
     step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder
     participation.
 
     We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G
8
     Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the
UN
     IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8
countries
     for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong support
that
     many of G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full
multistakeholder
     participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested
interests
     of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to
many of
     the users of the Internet.
 
     closing and salutations..... 
-- 
 
 

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

Read our  email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
this email unless necessary.

 



-- 




Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change 
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/> 
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/e18cb969/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/e18cb969/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May  9 10:42:18 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 07:42:18 -0700
Subject: [governance] The Unwisdom of Elites -NYTimes.com
Message-ID: <0AE2798CFF6B4F2092748BD432C0442A@userPC>

 
Quite coincidentally this appeared in my next tranche of downloaded email...
While off our direct topic I think it speaks quite immediately to the issue
I was speaking to in my earlier email concenring elite domination of policy
making which is as evident (if only emergent) in IG issues as it is in the
finanicial sphere.
 
MG
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 <http://www.nytimes.com/>  <http://www.nytimes.com/> The New York Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/> 

 

    




  _____  

May 8, 2011


The Unwisdom of Elites


By PAUL
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/pau
lkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per> KRUGMAN


The past three years have been a disaster for most Western economies. The
United States has mass long-term unemployment for the first time since the
1930s. Meanwhile, Europe's single currency is coming apart at the seams. How
did it all go so wrong? 

Well, what I've been hearing with growing frequency from members of the
policy elite - self-appointed wise men, officials, and pundits in good
standing - is the claim that it's mostly the public's fault. The idea is
that we got into this mess because voters wanted something for nothing, and
weak-minded politicians catered to the electorate's foolishness. 

So this seems like a good time to point out that this blame-the-public view
isn't just self-serving, it's dead wrong. 

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster.
The policies that got us into this mess weren't responses to public demand.
They were, with few exceptions, policies championed by small groups of
influential people - in many cases, the same people now lecturing the rest
of us on the need to get serious. And by trying to shift the blame to the
general populace, elites are ducking some much-needed reflection on their
own catastrophic mistakes. 

Let me focus mainly on what happened in the United States, then say a few
words about Europe. 

These days Americans get constant lectures about the need to reduce the
budget deficit. That focus in itself represents distorted priorities, since
our immediate concern should be job creation. But suppose we restrict
ourselves to talking about the deficit, and ask: What happened to the budget
surplus the federal government had in 2000? 

The answer is, three main things. First, there were the Bush tax cuts, which
added roughly $2 trillion to the national debt over the last decade. Second,
there were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which added an additional $1.1
trillion or so. And third was the Great Recession, which led both to a
collapse in revenue and to a sharp rise in spending on unemployment
insurance and other safety-net programs. 

So who was responsible for these budget busters? It wasn't the man in the
street. 

President George W. Bush cut taxes in the service of his party's ideology,
not in response to a groundswell of popular demand - and the bulk of the
cuts went to a small, affluent minority. 

Similarly, Mr. Bush chose to invade Iraq because that was something he and
his advisers wanted to do, not because Americans were clamoring for war
against a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, it took a highly
deceptive sales campaign to get Americans to support the invasion, and even
so, voters were never as solidly behind the war as America's political and
pundit elite. 

Finally, the Great Recession was brought on by a runaway financial sector,
empowered by reckless deregulation. And who was responsible for that
deregulation? Powerful people in Washington with close ties to the financial
industry, that's who. Let me give a particular shout-out to Alan Greenspan,
who played a crucial role both in financial deregulation and in the passage
of the Bush tax cuts - and who is now, of course, among those hectoring us
about the deficit. 

So it was the bad judgment of the elite, not the greediness of the common
man, that caused America's deficit. And much the same is true of the
European crisis. 

Needless to say, that's not what you hear from European policy makers. The
official story in Europe these days is that governments of troubled nations
catered too much to the masses, promising too much to voters while
collecting too little in taxes. And that is, to be fair, a reasonably
accurate story for Greece. But it's not at all what happened in Ireland and
Spain, both of which had low debt and budget surpluses on the eve of the
crisis. 

The real story of Europe's crisis is that leaders created a single currency,
the euro, without creating the institutions that were needed to cope with
booms and busts within the euro zone. And the drive for a single European
currency was the ultimate top-down project, an elite vision imposed on
highly reluctant voters. 

Does any of this matter? Why should we be concerned about the effort to
shift the blame for bad policies onto the general public? 

One answer is simple accountability. People who advocated budget-busting
policies during the Bush years shouldn't be allowed to pass themselves off
as deficit hawks; people who praised
<http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/ireland-the-model/> Ireland as
a role model shouldn't be giving lectures on responsible government. 

But the larger answer, I'd argue, is that by making up stories about our
current predicament that absolve the people who put us here there, we cut
off any chance to learn from the crisis. We need to place the blame where it
belongs, to chasten our policy elites. Otherwise, they'll do even more
damage in the years ahead. 

=====================================================================

 
<http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/clientside/3738bf9bQ2Fz5KAuWQ51Q3EU)uVQ51Q3E
AQ51DLAXWNQ7E>
<http://up.nytimes.com/?d=0/9/&t=&s=0&ui=0&r=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2enytimes%2eco
m%2f2011%2f05%2f09%2fopinion%2f09krugman%2ehtml%3f%5fr%3d1%26emc%3deta1&u=ww
w%2enytimes%2ecom%2f2011%2f05%2f09%2fopinion%2f09krugman%2ehtml%3f%5fr%3d1%2
6emc%3deta1%26pagewanted%3dprint> 

  <http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/upNext/upnext_rest.png> 

More in Opinion (3 of 18 articles)

Op-Ed
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/opinion/09douthat.html?src=un&feedurl=htt
p%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp> Columnist:
Whose Foreign Policy Is It?

Read
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/opinion/09douthat.html?src=un&feedurl=htt
p%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp> More >

Close




 






__._,_.___

 
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97476590/grpId=15209059/grpspId=1705083512/msgI
d=14772/stime=1304947315> 



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional 
Change
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ottawadissenters/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnZTU2M2FyBF
9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsaw
NzdG5ncwRzdGltZQMxMzA0OTQ3MzE1> settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
Change settings via email: Switch
<mailto:Ottawadissenters-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20
Digest> delivery to Daily Digest | Switch
<mailto:Ottawadissenters-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Deliv
ery%20Format:%20Fully%20Featured> to Fully Featured 
Visit
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ottawadissenters;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYTBrdWNhBF9TAzk
3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNocGY
Ec3RpbWUDMTMwNDk0NzMxNQ--> Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> of Use | Unsubscribe
<mailto:Ottawadissenters-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> 





__,_._,___

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/509ecae3/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 May  9 11:39:01 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 18:39:01 +0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <03F23BE5-6C2C-4885-934B-7C79AD855008@ella.com>
References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <BANLkTikEDg1hcEwb9m_QBH+AZye23csz0A@mail.gmail.com> <03F23BE5-6C2C-4885-934B-7C79AD855008@ella.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinh4ovrJOQEipfE7ejRF7xRWWLCKw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it might be sufficient to only include IAN's first sentence.  I do not not personally think it is needed, and I think we should be arguing for civil society's inclusion at this.
>
> I see no reason to go to ICC/Basis on this


Wouldn't they want to back us up on MSism?


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon May  9 11:49:03 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 11:49:03 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinh4ovrJOQEipfE7ejRF7xRWWLCKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org>
 <C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <BANLkTikEDg1hcEwb9m_QBH+AZye23csz0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <03F23BE5-6C2C-4885-934B-7C79AD855008@ella.com>,<BANLkTinh4ovrJOQEipfE7ejRF7xRWWLCKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B82@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

evidently not enough to not play along with Sarkozy

So business gets to be the strawman bad guys/fat cats hobnobbing with Presidents in Paris, eating virtual cake, while us rabble are left out of the conversation.  

That's our G8 story and now we stick to it.

________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:39 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it might be sufficient to only include IAN's first sentence.  I do not not personally think it is needed, and I think we should be arguing for civil society's inclusion at this.
>
> I see no reason to go to ICC/Basis on this


Wouldn't they want to back us up on MSism?


--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Mon May  9 12:54:39 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 12:54:39 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinh4ovrJOQEipfE7ejRF7xRWWLCKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <BANLkTikEDg1hcEwb9m_QBH+AZye23csz0A@mail.gmail.com> <03F23BE5-6C2C-4885-934B-7C79AD855008@ella.com> <BANLkTinh4ovrJOQEipfE7ejRF7xRWWLCKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B0657542-F35D-4BDD-AD9A-763BF86EA631@ella.com>


On 9 May 2011, at 11:39, McTim wrote:

> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I think it might be sufficient to only include IAN's first sentence.  I do not not personally think it is needed, and I think we should be arguing for civil society's inclusion at this.
>> 
>> I see no reason to go to ICC/Basis on this
> 
> 
> Wouldn't they want to back us up on MSism?
> 
> 


They might, and it would be lovely for them to send their own letter objecting to civil society's exclusion.  Though I admit I have trouble imagining that.

This, on the other hand is not only a plea for multistakeholder model in general but a statement of the inappropriateness of including only Business and not Civil society.  We should be ready to stand on our own making that claim.

I certainly do not think it appropriate to ask them to review the statement and suggest changes.  But certainly after it is sent, we should copy ICC/Basis and if they want to endorse it, then we can be grateful. 

a.

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

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon May  9 16:29:04 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 13:29:04 -0700
Subject: FW: [governance] Re: Greetings from Fiji!
Message-ID: <C3592DA31E4548E1AFEAAD760BC0239D@userPC>


Thanks for this very interesting set of insights Izumi.

One question... It isn't clear to me what role you would see for the various
actors -- the central government, organized NGO's/civil society, community
based/grassroots ICT folks in doing the planning you indicate should have
been done.

This same issue is being discussed on another e-list I follow and
specifically with respect to the devastating tornados in the US South and I
would be interested in your observations/insights specifically concerning
ICT planning.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of Izumi AIZU
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 7:20 PM
To: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Re: Greetings from Fiji!


Dear Sara and all,

Thank you for reminding me of this important subject. We have organized a
"tour" to visit several devastated areas in the past week(s) and just came
back two days ago. A total of more than 20 people took this tour, visited 10
cities. The situation is quite diverse, and in general, recovery works are
slow in small cities in remote and rural areas than cities close to the
central large cities, of course.

But it also appears that those city governments who have better management
skills got faster or more effective recovery and receiving more support from
outside while those who lack these skills also lack sufficient support.

While telco claims that they have recovered most of the land-lines, devils
are in the details. Some city goverment offices are not yet equipped with
PBX, many relief shelters don't have phones for the office (only for
residents), many schools and shelters and other public facilities also do
not have telephone and/or Internet access.

If you have mobile, yes, you have basic connectivity. But that is not same
as having regular fixed lines, broaband service connected to your office
LAN.

The lack of consistent ICT recovery policy by the government is evident,
both local and central. Most are still "patch work" waiting for the requests
to come. Same goes true for industry and some academia. Of course, there are
people who are voluntarily trying to analyze and offer proactive support,
they remain minority.

Both centralized commands and decentralized coordination or systematic
approach are needed, at least in my view, for quick and effective recovery
support, but that is not there yet.

To the credit of those working in the field, I am not criticizing them
directly, but lack or preparedness, organized frameworks, are evident in a
country where vast natural disasters are not foreign. ICT folks should stand
up or wake up at least in Japan if they want to remain in the part of
critical infrastructure for people and society.

izumi


2011/5/8 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
> Dear Izumi,
>
> Greetings from Fiji! How is the recovery work in Japan? What is the
> status of things there? It would be great to know what's happening in 
> Japan in terms of infrastructure, ICT etc? How is the work on the 
> ground?
>
> Our prayers and thoughts are still with your people as you journey to
> rebuild and mitigate the risks.
>
> 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Mon May  9 17:03:24 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 18:03:24 -0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <B0657542-F35D-4BDD-AD9A-763BF86EA631@ella.com>
References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org>
	<C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<BANLkTikEDg1hcEwb9m_QBH+AZye23csz0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<03F23BE5-6C2C-4885-934B-7C79AD855008@ella.com>
	<BANLkTinh4ovrJOQEipfE7ejRF7xRWWLCKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<B0657542-F35D-4BDD-AD9A-763BF86EA631@ella.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTik2MNPCa6cQLyQh0=6y4GCEJv74sA@mail.gmail.com>

Totally agree with Avri.

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

>
> On 9 May 2011, at 11:39, McTim wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I think it might be sufficient to only include IAN's first sentence.  I
> do not not personally think it is needed, and I think we should be arguing
> for civil society's inclusion at this.
> >>
> >> I see no reason to go to ICC/Basis on this
> >
> >
> > Wouldn't they want to back us up on MSism?
> >
> >
>
>
> They might, and it would be lovely for them to send their own letter
> objecting to civil society's exclusion.  Though I admit I have trouble
> imagining that.
>
> This, on the other hand is not only a plea for multistakeholder model in
> general but a statement of the inappropriateness of including only Business
> and not Civil society.  We should be ready to stand on our own making that
> claim.
>
> I certainly do not think it appropriate to ask them to review the statement
> and suggest changes.  But certainly after it is sent, we should copy
> ICC/Basis and if they want to endorse it, then we can be grateful.
>
> a.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
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/20110509/aa9dbb0e/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 wanadoo.fr  Mon May  9 18:05:54 2011
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 00:05:54 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <517D09AE6832424594C36B3A23166735@userPC>
References: <4DC7A1FC.90405@itforchange.net>
 <517D09AE6832424594C36B3A23166735@userPC>
Message-ID: <20197946.151080.1304978754473.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h12>


Dear list members

Michael Gurstein wrote :

(....)
All of which is to say, the instance that Parminder is pointing to is not isolated and it isn't accidental.   Mike

This is also my opinion. My warmest thanks to Parminder !

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT-France




> Message du 09/05/11 16:14
> De : "Michael Gurstein" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'parminder'" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : RE: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
> 
> Message I would like to support Parminder's comments and overall analysis here.    I think this issue should be put in the larger context of the broad outsourcing of government policy making (this specific example is particularly egregious since it isn't simply "outsourcing" but rather it seems to be putting policy making in these crucial spheres "up for auction").   In the Canadian and I believe other national contexts this "outsourcing of government policy making" is a broad trend which began initially with the destruction of government's internal capacity for research and policy analysis on the basis of "cost-cutting".  When this proved impossible to sustain in complex enviroments there was a broad shift to outsourcing these requirements to private agencies -- mostly privatized think tanks to provide this type of policy research and analysis.  Since these agencies were directly funded by the government of the day their capacity to undertake disinterested (or rather research and policy analysis in the "public interest" or towards the general good) was of course fatally compromised.   Issues of truly massive financial significance and global reach such as those involving the Internet (another example of course is the global financial system) are of particular concern here since what is required are global regulatory and policy making agencies sufficent to respond to the scale and scope of the matters at hand.    In the absence of these (as has been commented on repeatedly in this context in this forum) the need doesn't disappear but the mode of response takes a typical form at this stage of global development i.e. to turn to those "with the greatest stake" -- the private corps to provide the advice and policy direction required. The instrumentalities (including research and policy analysis) which would allow governments individually or collectively to undertake the required policy making simply don't exist nor do most of our current G8 governments want them to exist for ideological reasons.   Guys (and gals) its not that the French government (or the Canadian government in an earlier iteration) "forgot" to invite Civil Society to the table it is that they see no need to bring CS to the table and there are no institutions in most instances either at the naitonal level or at the global level which are structured in such a way as to require this i.e. to support "the public interest".   All of which is to say, the instance that Parminder is pointing to is not isolated and it isn't accidental.   Mike   -----Original Message-----
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:13 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
> 
> 
> On Monday 09 May 2011 01:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: My only problem with the text is that it tells them what we think they should do without telling them why it would be advantageous to do it another way. So its not likely to draw a great deal of attention.
> Thanks for your comments, Ian. In general I have no problem with incorporating your additions, and I will leave it to others to decide on it. However, I must assert, with the risk of looking like trying to take the moral high-ground, that civil society's role is not just to give 'technical' advice to others, about what is good for them or not. Our basic legitimacy is moral and representational... Also it is never clear, to 'whom' is something advantageous or not  - to the French President's own interest, the narrow interests of the French state, of the states of G * together, advantageous to whom?
> 
> So while an instrumental logic can be used to supplement our assertions, they should not be primary, and should in any case be used with great caution. We need to invlvoe all countries and all stakeholders not because it is advantageous to the principal parties being addressed here, (which in nay case they can refute by giving counter logic) but because that is the democratic and right way to do it. Period. That is what we stand for and struggle for. 
> 
> 
> To this end I would add another paragraph – perhaps after the “it is also pertinent” paragraph, along the lines of
> 
> 
> The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of business, civil society and technical interests. All of these inputs are essential to any sensible and effective developments in this area,Begs the question, sensible and effective for whom ?? Some things can be quite sensible and effective to, say large incumbent businesses, or even to narrow economic interests of a particular nation state perched at a particular place in the global digital economy chain or network. that does not diminish our right and effort to seek democratic participation in policy making. Also, I dont like the terminology of 'solutions' as if there are value- and interest- neutral solutions waiting to be found by the right application of expertise in all policy matters. 
> 
> For the same reason, I am not in agreement with one of Avri's edits where the call to adhere to canons or high principles of legitimate policy making is sought to be replace by best practises in policy making. This again suggests expertise and information-richness based policy models, but i think this is much more 'political' than that.
> 
> Just my views, for whatever they are worth :)
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> and we urge a more holistic involvement of this wide range of key players.  Only in this way will we be able to develop adequate solutions.
> 
> Ian Peter
> From: Jeremy Malcolm 
> Organization: Consumers International
> Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm 
> Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 12:29:14 +0800
> To: , Avri 
> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
> 
>    Thanks Parminder and Avri.  Here's a consolidated draft with Avri's edits.
>  
>      Basic courtesy stuff.....
>  
>      We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8
>      Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........,with a view
>      to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key global
>      Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8
>      countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially
>      important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many key
>      issues, especially in the information society arena.
>  
>      We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet meeting is
>      being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public policy making.
>      It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that has evolved
>      globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears that the G8
>      meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to industry and
>      government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage between
>      donations and invitations.
>  
>      Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
>      government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting
>      with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related
>      policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that includes civil
>      society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest
>      derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society, interests and
>      concerns.
>  
>      It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially a
>      global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations,
>      quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for
>      architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas
>      will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries
>      engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more
>      democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal
>      footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information
>      Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global Internet
>      related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part of these global
>      IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a significant
>      step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder
>      participation.
>  
>      We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G 8
>      Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN
>      IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8 countries
>      for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong support that
>      many of G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder
>      participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests
>      of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of
>      the users of the Internet.
>  
>      closing and salutations..... 
> -- 
>  
>  
> 
> 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
> 
> Read our  email confidentiality notice  . Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> P { COLOR: rgb(0,0,0) } A:link { } P { COLOR: rgb(0,0,0) } A:link { } 
Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change 
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.net
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/90737692/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/90737692/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 10 03:27:08 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:27:08 +0800
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>

Here's another consolidated draft, with all the generally-agreed changes
suggested so far.  As suggested, we'll also have a tweaked version of
this with a catchy headline as a press release, and for translating into
French.

--- begins ---

Basic courtesy stuff.....

We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8
Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........, with a
view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key
global Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of
G 8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is
especially important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda
on many key issues, especially in the information society arena.

We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet meeting
is being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public
policy making. It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder
participation that has evolved globally, especially in the area of
Internet governance. It appears that the G8 meeting is organized by
large Industry with access given only to industry and government
actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage between
donations and invitations.

Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
public policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting
with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet
related policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that
includes civil society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns
of global public interest derived from a diversity of people's, of many
sections of society, interests and
concerns.

It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most
powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm.
This is most true for architectural and economic issues, while the
global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It is therefore
appropriate that G 8 countries engage with the same, and other issues,
of Internet policies at the more democratic global forums where all
countries are present at an equal footing. In this connection, there is
the World Summit on the Information Society mandated set of processes
for dealing with pressing global Internet related issues.
Multistakeholder participation is an important part of these global IG
related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a
significant step backwards both for global democracy and for
multistakeholder participation.

The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments
are global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face
will need to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of business,
civil society and technical interests.

We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G
8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of
the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8
countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong
support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full
multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit
discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners is
baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.

closing and salutations.....

--- ends ---

I'd like to go to a consensus call on this 48 hours from now if possible.

-- 

*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_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/2e09a400/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/2e09a400/attachment.bin>

From divina.meigs at orange.fr  Tue May 10 04:11:07 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:11:07 +0200
Subject: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C445A49F-2847-43B1-84E0-96B73CCA63D8@ella.com>
Message-ID: <C9EEBFBB.207F8%divina.meigs@orange.fr>


I agree with Avri, about IGC. I may have a possibility to publish the
statement in le monde interactive, but i do need a finalized version,
translated... 
Best
divina


Le 09/05/11 13:21, « Avri Doria » <avri at ella.com> a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> I a not sure why we want to explain CPSR, its relation is just as a place that
> host our mailing list.  I do not know how much is left of the organizations
> itself.
> 
> If anything we might explain IGC.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 9 May 2011, at 06:05, Marie GEORGES wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> May I suggest you send the text in the form of  a "regular" press release
>> through Reuters and Agence France Presse. In that case it would be useful to
>> explain in few words what is the CPSR... since when and the different topics
>> it deals with
>> 
>> Best to you
>> Marie
>> Le 9 mai 2011 à 05:56, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
>> 
>>> Dear all
>>> 
>>> I can only confirm what you already know about this meeting. The French
>>> government has a very closed approach to the issue, as can be witnessed by
>>> the recent creation of the "conseil national du numérique", only composed of
>>> business, despite some outcries from different quarters. No
>>> multistakeholderism here.
>>> 
>>> It would be important to translate the statement in French nonetheless and
>>> to send it to La Quadrature du cercle but also to Le Monde interactif and
>>> other online newspapers. Maybe some other French members on this list can
>>> help...  
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> Divina 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Le 09/05/11 03:36, « Izumi AIZU » <iza at anr.org> a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested
>>>> edits
>>>> by Avri.
>>>> 
>>>> From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
>>>> oraganized by
>>>> French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of
>>>> it.
>>>> 
>>>> I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
>>>> to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.
>>>> 
>>>> izumi
>>>> 
>>>> 2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>>>>> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
>>>>> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
>>>>> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
>>>>> to raise.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
>>>>> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
>>>>> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues.  These
>>>>> are from the book, "The Tipping Point".  Thanks Parminder and Avri for
>>>>> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
>>>>> strategy.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
>>>>>> proposed by Avri.
>>>>>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what
>>>>>> CS
>>>>>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
>>>>>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
>>>>>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net.
>>>>>> Does
>>>>>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
>>>>>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Marília
>>>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


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

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

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


From marie.georges at noos.fr  Tue May 10 04:31:38 2011
From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:31:38 +0200
Subject: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C9EEBFBB.207F8%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <C9EEBFBB.207F8%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <C570D96B-6077-4FE1-A4A3-CEBFB66647C6@noos.fr>

Hi,
I may have the possibility to pass quickly the statement to those in the French  ministry of foreign affairs in charge of internet governance and concerned by the e forum and the summit,   to the European Commisison and EU Parliament, to EU NGos (EDRI, European ligue des drotis d el'homme)  and in France to  to Quadrature du Net and Ligue des droits de l'homme.; 
Best regards
Marie

Le 10 mai 2011 à 10:11, Divina MEIGS a écrit :

> 
> I agree with Avri, about IGC. I may have a possibility to publish the
> statement in le monde interactive, but i do need a finalized version,
> translated... 
> Best
> divina
> 
> 
> Le 09/05/11 13:21, « Avri Doria » <avri at ella.com> a écrit :
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I a not sure why we want to explain CPSR, its relation is just as a place that
>> host our mailing list.  I do not know how much is left of the organizations
>> itself.
>> 
>> If anything we might explain IGC.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 9 May 2011, at 06:05, Marie GEORGES wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> May I suggest you send the text in the form of  a "regular" press release
>>> through Reuters and Agence France Presse. In that case it would be useful to
>>> explain in few words what is the CPSR... since when and the different topics
>>> it deals with
>>> 
>>> Best to you
>>> Marie
>>> Le 9 mai 2011 à 05:56, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> Dear all
>>>> 
>>>> I can only confirm what you already know about this meeting. The French
>>>> government has a very closed approach to the issue, as can be witnessed by
>>>> the recent creation of the "conseil national du numérique", only composed of
>>>> business, despite some outcries from different quarters. No
>>>> multistakeholderism here.
>>>> 
>>>> It would be important to translate the statement in French nonetheless and
>>>> to send it to La Quadrature du cercle but also to Le Monde interactif and
>>>> other online newspapers. Maybe some other French members on this list can
>>>> help...  
>>>> 
>>>> Best
>>>> Divina 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Le 09/05/11 03:36, « Izumi AIZU » <iza at anr.org> a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested
>>>>> edits
>>>>> by Avri.
>>>>> 
>>>>> From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
>>>>> oraganized by
>>>>> French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of
>>>>> it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
>>>>> to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> izumi
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>>>>>> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
>>>>>> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
>>>>>> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
>>>>>> to raise.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
>>>>>> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
>>>>>> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues.  These
>>>>>> are from the book, "The Tipping Point".  Thanks Parminder and Avri for
>>>>>> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
>>>>>> strategy.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
>>>>>>> proposed by Avri.
>>>>>>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what
>>>>>>> CS
>>>>>>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
>>>>>>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
>>>>>>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net.
>>>>>>> Does
>>>>>>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
>>>>>>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Marília
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>   governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>   governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

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

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

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


From ocl at gih.com  Tue May 10 04:32:50 2011
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:32:50 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4DC8F832.4040000@gih.com>

Jeremy,

On 10/05/2011 09:27, Jeremy Malcolm wrote :
> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed
> G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model
> of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the
> G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The
> strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown
> for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to
> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners
> is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.

Just a couple of suggestions:

Please give acronym for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
Please make sure of consistency between "G 8" and "G8": choose one or
the other.
Also please define IGF as "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)".

Kind regards,

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

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

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

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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue May 10 04:42:51 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:42:51 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC8F832.4040000@gih.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC8F832.4040000@gih.com>
Message-ID: <4DC8FA8B.9010909@wzb.eu>

Hi, since we have such good opportunities to get the statement widely 
circulated, can we please quickly agree on the last version posted by 
Jeremy?

jeanette

On 10.05.2011 10:32, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> Jeremy,
>
> On 10/05/2011 09:27, Jeremy Malcolm wrote :
>> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed
>> G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model
>> of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the
>> G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The
>> strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown
>> for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to
>> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners
>> is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.
>
> Just a couple of suggestions:
>
> Please give acronym for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
> Please make sure of consistency between "G 8" and "G8": choose one or
> the other.
> Also please define IGF as "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)".
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Tue May 10 04:46:22 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:46:22 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC8FA8B.9010909@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <C9EEC7FE.20811%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Well done Jeanette!
divina


Le 10/05/11 10:42, « Jeanette Hofmann » <jeanette at wzb.eu> a écrit :

> Hi, since we have such good opportunities to get the statement widely
> circulated, can we please quickly agree on the last version posted by
> Jeremy?
> 
> jeanette
> 
> On 10.05.2011 10:32, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>> Jeremy,
>> 
>> On 10/05/2011 09:27, Jeremy Malcolm wrote :
>>> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed
>>> G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model
>>> of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the
>>> G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The
>>> strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown
>>> for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to
>>> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners
>>> is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.
>> 
>> Just a couple of suggestions:
>> 
>> Please give acronym for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
>> Please make sure of consistency between "G 8" and "G8": choose one or
>> the other.
>> Also please define IGF as "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)".
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Olivier
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Tue May 10 04:54:24 2011
From: f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it (Fiorello Cortiana)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:54:24 +0200
Subject: R: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC8F832.4040000@gih.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC8F832.4040000@gih.com>
Message-ID: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E6B8A@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it>

Good suggestions, now we need the statement to share/sand widely

Fiorello 

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Per conto di Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Inviato: martedì 10 maggio 2011 10.33
A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Oggetto: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

Jeremy,

On 10/05/2011 09:27, Jeremy Malcolm wrote :
> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed 
> G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model 
> of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the 
> G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The 
> strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown 
> for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to 
> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners 
> is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.

Just a couple of suggestions:

Please give acronym for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
Please make sure of consistency between "G 8" and "G8": choose one or the other.
Also please define IGF as "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)".

Kind regards,

Olivier

--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

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

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

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

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 10 05:07:40 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:37:40 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>

Jeremy

Can you put civil society before businesses in the phrase ' wide range 
of business, civil society and technical interests'. That is how UN 
documents write it.

Also in the very last sentence I would like the reference to 'internet 
users' to be removed. This policy model is also acceptable to the 
present non-users.

I would prefer that we change the following sentence

"The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have 
shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current 
decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' 
industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users 
of the Internet."

to

"The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have 
shown for full multistakeholder participation in relation to the UN's 
Internet Governance Forum makes this current decision to limit 
discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners  
baffling, and in any case completely unacceptable to us."

parminder

On Tuesday 10 May 2011 12:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Here's another consolidated draft, with all the generally-agreed 
> changes suggested so far.  As suggested, we'll also have a tweaked 
> version of this with a catchy headline as a press release, and for 
> translating into French.
>
> --- begins ---
>
> Basic courtesy stuff.....
>
> We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a 
> G8 Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........, 
> with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit 
> regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that many 
> heads of states of G 8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. 
> The meeting is especially important since in the past G 8 has set up 
> the global agenda on many key issues, especially in the information 
> society arena.
>
> We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet 
> meeting is being organised which is ignoring current best practice in 
> public policy making. It also jettisons the principle of 
> multistakeholder participation that has evolved globally, especially 
> in the area of Internet governance. It appears that the G8 meeting is 
> organized by large Industry with access given only to industry and 
> government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage 
> between donations and invitations.
>
> Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on 
> public policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated 
> meeting with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda 
> for Internet related policies is inappropriate. What is required is a 
> discussion that includes civil society actors, who will bring to the 
> table the concerns of global public interest derived from a diversity 
> of people's, of many sections of society, interests and
> concerns.
>
> It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is 
> essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most 
> powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm. 
> This is most true for architectural and economic issues, while the 
> global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It is therefore 
> appropriate that G 8 countries engage with the same, and other issues, 
> of Internet policies at the more democratic global forums where all 
> countries are present at an equal footing. In this connection, there 
> is the World Summit on the Information Society mandated set of 
> processes for dealing with pressing global Internet related issues. 
> Multistakeholder participation is an important part of these global IG 
> related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a 
> significant step backwards both for global democracy and for 
> multistakeholder participation.
>
> The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments 
> are global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face 
> will need to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of 
> business, civil society and technical interests.
>
> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed 
> G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model 
> of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the 
> G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The 
> strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown 
> for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to 
> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners 
> is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.
>
> closing and salutations.....
>
> --- ends ---
>
> I'd like to go to a consensus call on this 48 hours from now if possible.
>
> -- 
>
> *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_
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/10c6860a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/10c6860a/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From avri at acm.org  Tue May 10 07:48:40 2011
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 07:48:40 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>

Hi,

Two issues with the change

-  the us of 'us'.  I think we should say who we are and what interests we are representing.    Perhaps something like .... unacceptable to the IGC, which advocates for cvil society's Internet governance interests.

- does changing from 'unacceptable' to 'completely unacceptable' add anything?  seems to make it somewhat more informal.

a.


On 10 May 2011, at 05:07, parminder wrote:

> Jeremy
> 
> Can you put civil society before businesses in the phrase ' wide range of business, civil society and technical interests'. That is how UN documents write it. 
> 
> Also in the very last sentence I would like the reference to 'internet users' to be removed. This policy model is also acceptable to the present non-users. 
> 
> I would prefer that we change the following sentence
> 
> "The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet."
> 
> to
> 
> "The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation in relation to the UN's Internet Governance Forum makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners  baffling, and in any case completely unacceptable to us."
> 
> parminder 
> 
> On Tuesday 10 May 2011 12:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> Here's another consolidated draft, with all the generally-agreed changes suggested so far.  As suggested, we'll also have a tweaked version of this with a catchy headline as a press release, and for translating into French.
>> 
>> --- begins ---
>> 
>> Basic courtesy stuff.....
>> 
>> We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8 Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........, with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many key issues, especially in the information society arena.
>> 
>> We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet meeting is being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public policy making. It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that has evolved globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears that the G8 meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to industry and government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage between donations and invitations.
>> 
>> Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on public policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that includes civil society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society, interests and
>> concerns.
>> 
>> It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global Internet related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part of these global IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a significant step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder participation.
>> 
>> The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of business, civil society and technical interests.
>> 
>> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.
>> 
>> closing and salutations..... 
>> 
>> --- ends ---
>> 
>> I'd like to go to a consensus call on this 48 hours from now if possible.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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
>> 
>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change 
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.net
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
> <itfc_logo.png>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

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

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue May 10 09:08:17 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 18:38:17 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net>

I agree with these comments... Basically i wanted 'unacceptable to many 
internet users' part removed....

Agree, that 'us' looks unclear.

also thought 'unacceptable to us' looks too light, but yes adding 
'completely' may not be great. maybe another set of words can be used... 
parminder

On Tuesday 10 May 2011 05:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Two issues with the change
>
> -  the us of 'us'.  I think we should say who we are and what interests we are representing.    Perhaps something like .... unacceptable to the IGC, which advocates for cvil society's Internet governance interests.
>
> - does changing from 'unacceptable' to 'completely unacceptable' add anything?  seems to make it somewhat more informal.
>
> a.
>
>
> On 10 May 2011, at 05:07, parminder wrote:
>
>> Jeremy
>>
>> Can you put civil society before businesses in the phrase ' wide range of business, civil society and technical interests'. That is how UN documents write it.
>>
>> Also in the very last sentence I would like the reference to 'internet users' to be removed. This policy model is also acceptable to the present non-users.
>>
>> I would prefer that we change the following sentence
>>
>> "The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet."
>>
>> to
>>
>> "The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation in relation to the UN's Internet Governance Forum makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners  baffling, and in any case completely unacceptable to us."
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Tuesday 10 May 2011 12:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> Here's another consolidated draft, with all the generally-agreed changes suggested so far.  As suggested, we'll also have a tweaked version of this with a catchy headline as a press release, and for translating into French.
>>>
>>> --- begins ---
>>>
>>> Basic courtesy stuff.....
>>>
>>> We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8 Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........, with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many key issues, especially in the information society arena.
>>>
>>> We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet meeting is being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public policy making. It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that has evolved globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears that the G8 meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to industry and government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage between donations and invitations.
>>>
>>> Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on public policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that includes civil society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society, interests and
>>> concerns.
>>>
>>> It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global Internet related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part of these global IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a significant step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder participation.
>>>
>>> The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of business, civil society and technical interests.
>>>
>>> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.
>>>
>>> closing and salutations.....
>>>
>>> --- ends ---
>>>
>>> I'd like to go to a consensus call on this 48 hours from now if possible.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>
>> -- 
>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>> Executive Director
>> IT for Change
>> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
>> www.ITforChange.net
>> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
>> <itfc_logo.png>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/acec8061/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/acec8061/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 10 09:15:52 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:15:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>

Can we perhaps set a deadline?

jeanette

Am 10.05.2011 15:08, schrieb parminder:
> I agree with these comments... Basically i wanted 'unacceptable to many
> internet users' part removed....
>
> Agree, that 'us' looks unclear.
>
> also thought 'unacceptable to us' looks too light, but yes adding
> 'completely' may not be great. maybe another set of words can be used...
> parminder
>
> On Tuesday 10 May 2011 05:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Two issues with the change
>>
>> -  the us of'us'.  I think we should say who we are and what interests we are representing.    Perhaps something like .... unacceptable to the IGC, which advocates for cvil society's Internet governance interests.
>>
>> - does changing from'unacceptable'  to'completely unacceptable'  add anything?  seems to make it somewhat more informal.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>> On 10 May 2011, at 05:07, parminder wrote:
>>
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>> Can you put civil society before businesses in the phrase'  wide range of business, civil society and technical interests'. That is how UN documents write it.
>>>
>>> Also in the very last sentence I would like the reference to'internet users'  to be removed. This policy model is also acceptable to the present non-users.
>>>
>>> I would prefer that we change the following sentence
>>>
>>> "The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments'  industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet."
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>> "The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation in relation to the UN's Internet Governance Forum makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments'  industry partners  baffling, and in any case completely unacceptable to us."
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 10 May 2011 12:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>> Here's another consolidated draft, with all the generally-agreed changes suggested so far.  As suggested, we'll also have a tweaked version of this with a catchy headline as a press release, and for translating into French.
>>>>
>>>> --- begins ---
>>>>
>>>> Basic courtesy stuff.....
>>>>
>>>> We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8 Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........, with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many key issues, especially in the information society arena.
>>>>
>>>> We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet meeting is being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public policy making. It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that has evolved globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears that the G8 meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to industry and government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage between donations and invitations.
>>>>
>>>> Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on public policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that includes civil society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society, interests and
>>>> concerns.
>>>>
>>>> It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global Internet related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part of these global IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a significant step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder participation.
>>>>
>>>> The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of business, civil society and technical interests.
>>>>
>>>> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments'  industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.
>>>>
>>>> closing and salutations.....
>>>>
>>>> --- ends ---
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to go to a consensus call on this 48 hours from now if possible.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>>> Executive Director
>>> IT for Change
>>> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
>>> www.ITforChange.net  <http://www.ITforChange.net>
>>> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
>>> <itfc_logo.png>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Tue May 10 09:20:33 2011
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:20:33 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C9EEBFBB.207F8%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <C445A49F-2847-43B1-84E0-96B73CCA63D8@ella.com>
 <C9EEBFBB.207F8%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <30302980.13926.1305033633512.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e22>

Maybe I can be helpful for sending the statement (final release) to a journalist from Le Monde with whom I use to exchange on Telecom/ITC matters.

Please let me know 

friendliest greetings

Jean-Louis Fulklsack
CSDPTT- France




> Message du 10/05/11 10:11
> De : "Divina MEIGS" 
> A : "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "Avri Doria" 
> Copie à : "Jeanette Hofmann" , "CW Mail" 
> Objet : Re: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
> 
> 
> I agree with Avri, about IGC. I may have a possibility to publish the
> statement in le monde interactive, but i do need a finalized version,
> translated... 
> Best
> divina
> 
> 
> Le 09/05/11 13:21, « Avri Doria » a écrit :
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I a not sure why we want to explain CPSR, its relation is just as a place that
> > host our mailing list. I do not know how much is left of the organizations
> > itself.
> > 
> > If anything we might explain IGC.
> > 
> > a.
> > 
> > On 9 May 2011, at 06:05, Marie GEORGES wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> Dear all,
> >> May I suggest you send the text in the form of a "regular" press release
> >> through Reuters and Agence France Presse. In that case it would be useful to
> >> explain in few words what is the CPSR... since when and the different topics
> >> it deals with
> >> 
> >> Best to you
> >> Marie
> >> Le 9 mai 2011 à 05:56, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
> >> 
> >>> Dear all
> >>> 
> >>> I can only confirm what you already know about this meeting. The French
> >>> government has a very closed approach to the issue, as can be witnessed by
> >>> the recent creation of the "conseil national du numérique", only composed of
> >>> business, despite some outcries from different quarters. No
> >>> multistakeholderism here.
> >>> 
> >>> It would be important to translate the statement in French nonetheless and
> >>> to send it to La Quadrature du cercle but also to Le Monde interactif and
> >>> other online newspapers. Maybe some other French members on this list can
> >>> help... 
> >>> 
> >>> Best
> >>> Divina 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Le 09/05/11 03:36, « Izumi AIZU » a écrit :
> >>> 
> >>>> I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested
> >>>> edits
> >>>> by Avri.
> >>>> 
> >>>> From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
> >>>> oraganized by
> >>>> French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of
> >>>> it.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
> >>>> to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.
> >>>> 
> >>>> izumi
> >>>> 
> >>>> 2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >>>> :
> >>>>> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
> >>>>> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
> >>>>> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
> >>>>> to raise.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
> >>>>> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
> >>>>> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues. These
> >>>>> are from the book, "The Tipping Point". Thanks Parminder and Avri for
> >>>>> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
> >>>>> strategy.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel 
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
> >>>>>> proposed by Avri.
> >>>>>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what
> >>>>>> CS
> >>>>>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
> >>>>>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
> >>>>>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net.
> >>>>>> Does
> >>>>>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing? If we manage to be
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
> >>>>>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> Marília
> >>>>>> 
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>> 
> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>> 
> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>> 
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>> 
> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >> 
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >> 
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > 
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > 
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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/20110510/1b280491/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 katitza at eff.org  Tue May 10 09:23:05 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (katitza at eff.org)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 13:23:05 +0000
Subject: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C570D96B-6077-4FE1-A4A3-CEBFB66647C6@noos.fr>
References: <C9EEBFBB.207F8%divina.meigs@orange.fr><C570D96B-6077-4FE1-A4A3-CEBFB66647C6@noos.fr>
Message-ID: <314600039-1305033785-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-381046854-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Nice to see you in this list Marie. We are lucky to have you here. ! Un abrazo, Katitza 

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Marie GEORGES <marie.georges at noos.fr>
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:31:38 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Divina MEIGS<divina.meigs at orange.fr>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marie GEORGES <marie.georges at noos.fr>
Cc: Avri Doria<avri at ella.com>; Jeanette Hofmann<jeanette at wzb.eu>; CW Mail<mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>
Subject: Re: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting

Hi,
I may have the possibility to pass quickly the statement to those in the French  ministry of foreign affairs in charge of internet governance and concerned by the e forum and the summit,   to the European Commisison and EU Parliament, to EU NGos (EDRI, European ligue des drotis d el'homme)  and in France to  to Quadrature du Net and Ligue des droits de l'homme.; 
Best regards
Marie

Le 10 mai 2011 à 10:11, Divina MEIGS a écrit :

> 
> I agree with Avri, about IGC. I may have a possibility to publish the
> statement in le monde interactive, but i do need a finalized version,
> translated... 
> Best
> divina
> 
> 
> Le 09/05/11 13:21, « Avri Doria » <avri at ella.com> a écrit :
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I a not sure why we want to explain CPSR, its relation is just as a place that
>> host our mailing list.  I do not know how much is left of the organizations
>> itself.
>> 
>> If anything we might explain IGC.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 9 May 2011, at 06:05, Marie GEORGES wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> May I suggest you send the text in the form of  a "regular" press release
>>> through Reuters and Agence France Presse. In that case it would be useful to
>>> explain in few words what is the CPSR... since when and the different topics
>>> it deals with
>>> 
>>> Best to you
>>> Marie
>>> Le 9 mai 2011 à 05:56, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> Dear all
>>>> 
>>>> I can only confirm what you already know about this meeting. The French
>>>> government has a very closed approach to the issue, as can be witnessed by
>>>> the recent creation of the "conseil national du numérique", only composed of
>>>> business, despite some outcries from different quarters. No
>>>> multistakeholderism here.
>>>> 
>>>> It would be important to translate the statement in French nonetheless and
>>>> to send it to La Quadrature du cercle but also to Le Monde interactif and
>>>> other online newspapers. Maybe some other French members on this list can
>>>> help...  
>>>> 
>>>> Best
>>>> Divina 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Le 09/05/11 03:36, « Izumi AIZU » <iza at anr.org> a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested
>>>>> edits
>>>>> by Avri.
>>>>> 
>>>>> From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
>>>>> oraganized by
>>>>> French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of
>>>>> it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
>>>>> to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> izumi
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>>>>>> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
>>>>>> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
>>>>>> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
>>>>>> to raise.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
>>>>>> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
>>>>>> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues.  These
>>>>>> are from the book, "The Tipping Point".  Thanks Parminder and Avri for
>>>>>> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
>>>>>> strategy.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
>>>>>>> proposed by Avri.
>>>>>>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what
>>>>>>> CS
>>>>>>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
>>>>>>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
>>>>>>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net.
>>>>>>> Does
>>>>>>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
>>>>>>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Marília
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>   governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>   governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> 
>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

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

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

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

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

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue May 10 10:49:24 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 07:49:24 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
Message-ID: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC>

(further to my earlier post)

Note: today's announcement that MS is in the process of buying skype

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-10/microsoft-said-to-be-negotiating-pu
rchase-of-internet-call-provider-skype.html

Should be seen alongside: 

> In the run up to the (Royal) wedding, facebook decided to delete 50
profiles 
> of British anti cuts protest groups. Seems like they have been 
> coordinating this with the police. Scary precedent.
> 
> Join the protest against it... on facebook
 <...>

Various ICT functionalities have proven their value and global significance
to the point of essentially becoming part of a global "public"
infrastructure on which a variety of other public (and other)
functionalities are built (what would global civil society have looked like
over the last half dozen years in the absence of skype for example).  What
has emerged, I think, alongside this is a global public interest in these
functionalities. 

What has not evolved apace is the global capacity to intervene with these
functionalities to regulate and protect the global public interest/public
goods.

I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG discussions but
even from a purely self-interested CS perspective there is an absolute need
to begin to work towards some sort of global institutional/regulatory
framework to ensure the preservation of a public interest in a global
virtual public space and public capacity for very low cost IP enabled
international communications (a la skype).

Mike


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

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue May 10 11:29:40 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 20:59:40 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
In-Reply-To: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC>
References: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC>
Message-ID: <4DC959E4.8010900@itforchange.net>

What Mike is pointing to is the real IG issue that we should be very 
concerned about.

The news of Facebook censoring anti-cut protests in UK is rather scary. 
Our digital Tahrir squares are private spaces, where the private owners 
(and their friendly interests) dont have to send in armies to remove 
people whose protests they dont sympathise with. parminder

On Tuesday 10 May 2011 08:19 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> (further to my earlier post)
>
> Note: today's announcement that MS is in the process of buying skype
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-10/microsoft-said-to-be-negotiating-pu
> rchase-of-internet-call-provider-skype.html
>
> Should be seen alongside:
>
>> In the run up to the (Royal) wedding, facebook decided to delete 50
> profiles
>> of British anti cuts protest groups. Seems like they have been
>> coordinating this with the police. Scary precedent.
>>
>> Join the protest against it... on facebook
>   <...>
>
> Various ICT functionalities have proven their value and global significance
> to the point of essentially becoming part of a global "public"
> infrastructure on which a variety of other public (and other)
> functionalities are built (what would global civil society have looked like
> over the last half dozen years in the absence of skype for example).  What
> has emerged, I think, alongside this is a global public interest in these
> functionalities.
>
> What has not evolved apace is the global capacity to intervene with these
> functionalities to regulate and protect the global public interest/public
> goods.
>
> I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG discussions but
> even from a purely self-interested CS perspective there is an absolute need
> to begin to work towards some sort of global institutional/regulatory
> framework to ensure the preservation of a public interest in a global
> virtual public space and public capacity for very low cost IP enabled
> international communications (a la skype).
>
> Mike
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/79b36fb7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/79b36fb7/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 10 15:47:29 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:47:29 +0200
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
 <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
 <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
 <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
 <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
 <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu>
 <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC8F832.4040000@gih.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Probably it would be good directly to quite from the Tunis Agenda.
 
w 

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Gesendet: Di 10.05.2011 10:32
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting



Jeremy,

On 10/05/2011 09:27, Jeremy Malcolm wrote :
> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed
> G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model
> of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the
> G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The
> strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown
> for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to
> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners
> is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.

Just a couple of suggestions:

Please give acronym for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
Please make sure of consistency between "G 8" and "G8": choose one or
the other.
Also please define IGF as "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)".

Kind regards,

Olivier

--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

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

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

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



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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 10 15:54:13 2011
From: lorena.jaume-palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (=?utf-8?B?TG9yZW5hIEphdW1lLVBhbGFzw60=?=)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 19:54:13 +0000
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net><Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com><93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu><4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net><20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch><4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net><c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost><4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net><F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu><4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
  <4DC8F832.4040000@gih.com><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <1651926040-1305057247-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1174545454-@b28.c15.bise7.blackberry>

Wolfgang, bin unterwegs nach hause, in 10 min koennte ich dich uebers festnetz anrufen. Dauert nicht lange. Was mwinst du? VG, lorena
Von meinem drahtlosen BlackBerry®-Handheld gesendet

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
 <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:47:29 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<ocl at gih.com>; <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Jeremy Malcolm<jeremy at ciroap.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,
          "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
 <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

Probably it would be good directly to quite from the Tunis Agenda.
 
w 

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Gesendet: Di 10.05.2011 10:32
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting



Jeremy,

On 10/05/2011 09:27, Jeremy Malcolm wrote :
> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed
> G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model
> of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the
> G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The
> strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown
> for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to
> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners
> is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.

Just a couple of suggestions:

Please give acronym for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
Please make sure of consistency between "G 8" and "G8": choose one or
the other.
Also please define IGF as "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)".

Kind regards,

Olivier

--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 10 15:57:44 2011
From: lorena.jaume-palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (=?utf-8?B?TG9yZW5hIEphdW1lLVBhbGFzw60=?=)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 19:57:44 +0000
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net><Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com><93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu><4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net><20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch><4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net><c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost><4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net><F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu><4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
  <4DC8F832.4040000@gih.com><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <1014681370-1305057457-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1937373862-@b28.c15.bise7.blackberry>

Dear list I beg your pardon. The German Email was not meant for the list.  Regards, Lorena Jaume
Von meinem drahtlosen BlackBerry®-Handheld gesendet

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
 <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:47:29 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<ocl at gih.com>; <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Jeremy Malcolm<jeremy at ciroap.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,
          "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
 <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

Probably it would be good directly to quite from the Tunis Agenda.
 
w 

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Gesendet: Di 10.05.2011 10:32
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting



Jeremy,

On 10/05/2011 09:27, Jeremy Malcolm wrote :
> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed
> G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model
> of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the
> G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The
> strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown
> for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to
> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners
> is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.

Just a couple of suggestions:

Please give acronym for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
Please make sure of consistency between "G 8" and "G8": choose one or
the other.
Also please define IGF as "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)".

Kind regards,

Olivier

--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Tue May 10 15:55:07 2011
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:55:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
In-Reply-To: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC>
References: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC>
Message-ID: <20110510195507.GA28533@sources.org>

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:49:24AM -0700,
 Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 51 lines which said:

> I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG
> discussions but even from a purely self-interested CS perspective
> there is an absolute need to begin to work towards some sort of
> global institutional/regulatory framework to ensure the preservation
> of a public interest in a global virtual public space and public
> capacity for very low cost IP enabled international communications
> (a la skype).

I fail to see why the fate of the private company Skype, which
produces a closed software using undocumented proprietary protocols
could be a subject for CS.

I agree that "preservation of a public interest in a global virtual
public space" and "very low cost IP enabled international
communications" are good goals. But Skype is the very counter-example
of what we should aim for. Specially, the fact that the source code is
hidden from its users is there to hide shameful practices such as
enrolling users as "supernodes" without asking their advice or even
informing them (see
<http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.html>
and the list in
<http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>).

So, if CS is interested in "preservation of a public interest in a
global virtual public space", it should push the use of open protocols
for instant messaging and voice over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to
encourage closed software.

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 10 16:11:02 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 22:11:02 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
References: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC>
 <20110510195507.GA28533@sources.org>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Thanks Stephane
1+ and full support. 
 
w

 
________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Stephane Bortzmeyer
Gesendet: Di 10.05.2011 21:55
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
Betreff: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?



On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:49:24AM -0700,
 Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote
 a message of 51 lines which said:

> I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG
> discussions but even from a purely self-interested CS perspective
> there is an absolute need to begin to work towards some sort of
> global institutional/regulatory framework to ensure the preservation
> of a public interest in a global virtual public space and public
> capacity for very low cost IP enabled international communications
> (a la skype).

I fail to see why the fate of the private company Skype, which
produces a closed software using undocumented proprietary protocols
could be a subject for CS.

I agree that "preservation of a public interest in a global virtual
public space" and "very low cost IP enabled international
communications" are good goals. But Skype is the very counter-example
of what we should aim for. Specially, the fact that the source code is
hidden from its users is there to hide shameful practices such as
enrolling users as "supernodes" without asking their advice or even
informing them (see
<http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.html>
and the list in
<http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>).

So, if CS is interested in "preservation of a public interest in a
global virtual public space", it should push the use of open protocols
for instant messaging and voice over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to
encourage closed software.

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

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

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



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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Tue May 10 16:30:27 2011
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 16:30:27 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC> <20110510195507.GA28533@sources.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <8E4617D2-5AEA-4BB3-B8BF-4E3BE92F90D7@psg.com>


besides, becasue of the security hole for OSX, it isn't even usable anymore on MAC.
let Microsoft have it.
lets use Jabber instead.

(does google talk use SIP?)

a.


On 10 May 2011, at 16:11, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> Thanks Stephane
> 1+ and full support. 
> 
> w
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Stephane Bortzmeyer
> Gesendet: Di 10.05.2011 21:55
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
> Betreff: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:49:24AM -0700,
> Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote
> a message of 51 lines which said:
> 
>> I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG
>> discussions but even from a purely self-interested CS perspective
>> there is an absolute need to begin to work towards some sort of
>> global institutional/regulatory framework to ensure the preservation
>> of a public interest in a global virtual public space and public
>> capacity for very low cost IP enabled international communications
>> (a la skype).
> 
> I fail to see why the fate of the private company Skype, which
> produces a closed software using undocumented proprietary protocols
> could be a subject for CS.
> 
> I agree that "preservation of a public interest in a global virtual
> public space" and "very low cost IP enabled international
> communications" are good goals. But Skype is the very counter-example
> of what we should aim for. Specially, the fact that the source code is
> hidden from its users is there to hide shameful practices such as
> enrolling users as "supernodes" without asking their advice or even
> informing them (see
> <http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.html>
> and the list in
> <http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>).
> 
> So, if CS is interested in "preservation of a public interest in a
> global virtual public space", it should push the use of open protocols
> for instant messaging and voice over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to
> encourage closed software.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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


From ca at cafonso.ca  Tue May 10 16:51:11 2011
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 17:51:11 -0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC> <20110510195507.GA28533@sources.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <4DC9A53F.6050807@cafonso.ca>

Thx, Steph. +1 as well.

--c.a.

On 05/10/2011 05:11 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Thanks Stephane
> 1+ and full support. 
>  
> w
> 
>  
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Stephane Bortzmeyer
> Gesendet: Di 10.05.2011 21:55
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
> Betreff: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:49:24AM -0700,
>  Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote
>  a message of 51 lines which said:
> 
>> I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG
>> discussions but even from a purely self-interested CS perspective
>> there is an absolute need to begin to work towards some sort of
>> global institutional/regulatory framework to ensure the preservation
>> of a public interest in a global virtual public space and public
>> capacity for very low cost IP enabled international communications
>> (a la skype).
> 
> I fail to see why the fate of the private company Skype, which
> produces a closed software using undocumented proprietary protocols
> could be a subject for CS.
> 
> I agree that "preservation of a public interest in a global virtual
> public space" and "very low cost IP enabled international
> communications" are good goals. But Skype is the very counter-example
> of what we should aim for. Specially, the fact that the source code is
> hidden from its users is there to hide shameful practices such as
> enrolling users as "supernodes" without asking their advice or even
> informing them (see
> <http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.html>
> and the list in
> <http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>).
> 
> So, if CS is interested in "preservation of a public interest in a
> global virtual public space", it should push the use of open protocols
> for instant messaging and voice over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to
> encourage closed software.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue May 10 18:02:05 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:02:05 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
In-Reply-To: <20110510195507.GA28533@sources.org>
Message-ID: <B190998FCDA148A38CEF2E233FE4D4A7@userPC>

So is "push(ing) the use of open protocols for instant messaging and voice
over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to encourage closed software" sufficient
to ensure a universal accessability of "very low cost IP enabled
international communications"?

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:55 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
Subject: Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?


On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:49:24AM -0700,
 Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 51 lines which said:

> I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG 
> discussions but even from a purely self-interested CS perspective 
> there is an absolute need to begin to work towards some sort of global 
> institutional/regulatory framework to ensure the preservation of a 
> public interest in a global virtual public space and public capacity 
> for very low cost IP enabled international communications (a la 
> skype).

I fail to see why the fate of the private company Skype, which produces a
closed software using undocumented proprietary protocols could be a subject
for CS.

I agree that "preservation of a public interest in a global virtual public
space" and "very low cost IP enabled international communications" are good
goals. But Skype is the very counter-example of what we should aim for.
Specially, the fact that the source code is hidden from its users is there
to hide shameful practices such as enrolling users as "supernodes" without
asking their advice or even informing them (see
<http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.h
tml>
and the list in <http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>).

So, if CS is interested in "preservation of a public interest in a global
virtual public space", it should push the use of open protocols for instant
messaging and voice over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to encourage closed
software.

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

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

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


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed May 11 00:45:42 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 13:45:42 +0900
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
In-Reply-To: <8E4617D2-5AEA-4BB3-B8BF-4E3BE92F90D7@psg.com>
References: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC>
 <20110510195507.GA28533@sources.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <8E4617D2-5AEA-4BB3-B8BF-4E3BE92F90D7@psg.com>
Message-ID: <p06240803c9efad28ac0e@[192.168.1.160]>

>besides, becasue of the security hole for OSX, 
>it isn't even usable anymore on MAC.


does this fix?

<http://blogs.skype.com/garage/2011/05/2nd_hotfix_for_skype_51_for_ma_release_notes.html>

Adam



>let Microsoft have it.
>lets use Jabber instead.
>
>(does google talk use SIP?)
>
>a.
>
>
>On 10 May 2011, at 16:11, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>
>>  Thanks Stephane
>>  1+ and full support.
>>
>>  w
>>
>>
>>  ________________________________
>>
>>  Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Stephane Bortzmeyer
>>  Gesendet: Di 10.05.2011 21:55
>>  An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
>>  Betreff: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:49:24AM -0700,
>>  Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote
>>  a message of 51 lines which said:
>>
>>>  I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG
>>>  discussions but even from a purely self-interested CS perspective
>>>  there is an absolute need to begin to work towards some sort of
>>>  global institutional/regulatory framework to ensure the preservation
>>>  of a public interest in a global virtual public space and public
>>>  capacity for very low cost IP enabled international communications
>>>  (a la skype).
>>
>>  I fail to see why the fate of the private company Skype, which
>>  produces a closed software using undocumented proprietary protocols
>>  could be a subject for CS.
>>
>>  I agree that "preservation of a public interest in a global virtual
>>  public space" and "very low cost IP enabled international
>>  communications" are good goals. But Skype is the very counter-example
>>  of what we should aim for. Specially, the fact that the source code is
>>  hidden from its users is there to hide shameful practices such as
>>  enrolling users as "supernodes" without asking their advice or even
>>  informing them (see
>> 
>><http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.html>
>>  and the list in
>>  <http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>).
>>
>>  So, if CS is interested in "preservation of a public interest in a
>>  global virtual public space", it should push the use of open protocols
>>  for instant messaging and voice over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to
>>  encourage closed software.
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>  For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>  To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>  For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>  To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 11 00:55:58 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 10:25:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
In-Reply-To: <20110510195507.GA28533@sources.org>
References: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC> <20110510195507.GA28533@sources.org>
Message-ID: <4DCA16DE.9010600@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 11 May 2011 01:25 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:49:24AM -0700,
>   Michael Gurstein<gurstein at gmail.com>  wrote
>   a message of 51 lines which said:
>
>> I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG
>> discussions but even from a purely self-interested CS perspective
>> there is an absolute need to begin to work towards some sort of
>> global institutional/regulatory framework to ensure the preservation
>> of a public interest in a global virtual public space and public
>> capacity for very low cost IP enabled international communications
>> (a la skype).
> I fail to see why the fate of the private company Skype, which
> produces a closed software using undocumented proprietary protocols
> could be a subject for CS.

In the same way as Google of the closed algorithm is difficult to ignore 
as a subject by civil society. Is there anyone here who doesnt use 
google? Would MS and Google merging be not a big issue for all us?
> I agree that "preservation of a public interest in a global virtual
> public space" and "very low cost IP enabled international
> communications" are good goals. But Skype is the very counter-example
> of what we should aim for.
I agree that is the point. But what do you think we should aim for. Not 
only as our IP based communication system, but also as our search 
engine, and our social networking site,  as out payment gateway ......

The solution lies both in encouraging alternative practises, models and 
software/ applications, but as much in right regulatory frameworks. It 
would never to be possible to get what we seek without the later. That 
for me is one of the biggest IG issue around today. parminder


> Specially, the fact that the source code is
> hidden from its users is there to hide shameful practices such as
> enrolling users as "supernodes" without asking their advice or even
> informing them (see
> <http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.html>
> and the list in
> <http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>).
>
> So, if CS is interested in "preservation of a public interest in a
> global virtual public space", it should push the use of open protocols
> for instant messaging and voice over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to
> encourage closed software.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/908f3178/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/908f3178/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 11 03:13:45 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:13:45 +0800
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>

On 10/05/11 21:15, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Can we perhaps set a deadline?

Yes, I'm going to put it to consensus call in the form below
(incorporating the latest minor points).  Expect a poll invitation
soon.  For the press release, we'll basically just lose the "Basic
courtesy stuff" at the start and the "closing and salutations" at the
end, and add a heading such as "Civil society censures French plan for
closed meeting on Internet's future".

Dear President Sarkozy,

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is an open forum of
individual and organisational civil society actors who came together in
the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to
promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy
making (see http://www.igcaucus.org).

We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8
Internet meeting - the "eG8 Forum" - immediately prior to the G8 Summit
in Deauville, with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8
Summit regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that
many heads of states of G8 countries are expected to attend this
meeting. The meeting is especially important since in the past G8 has
set up the global agenda on many key issues, especially in the
information society arena.

We are very concerned about the manner in which the eG8 Forum is being
organised which is ignoring current best practice in public policy
making. It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder
participation that has evolved globally, especially in the area of
Internet governance. It appears that the eG8 Forum is organized by large
Industry with access given only to industry and government actors.  We
have also understood that there is a linkage between donations and
invitations.

Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
public policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting
with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet
related policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that
includes civil society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns
of global public interest derived from a diversity of people's, of many
sections of society, interests and concerns.

It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most
powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm.
This is most true for architectural and economic issues, while the
global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It is therefore
appropriate that G8 countries engage with the same, and other issues, of
Internet policies at the more democratic global forums where all
countries are present at an equal footing. In this connection, there is
the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) mandated set of
processes for dealing with pressing global Internet related issues.
Multistakeholder participation is an important part of these global IG
related processes. We see the eG8 Forum as a significant step backwards
both for global democracy and for multistakeholder participation.

The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments
are global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face
will need to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of civil
society, business and technical interests.

We therefore request you, and other G8 leaders, to make the eG8 Forum
genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN Internet
Governance Forum (IGF). We are impressed with the solid support provided
by the G8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF.
The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have
shown for full multistakeholder participation in relation to the IGF
makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of
governments' industry partners is baffling, and unacceptable to the IGC,
which advocates for civil society's Internet governance interests.

Yours sincerely,
Jeremy Malcolm and Izumi Aizu
Coordinators
Internet Governance Caucus

-- 

*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_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/07d2ba6f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/07d2ba6f/attachment.bin>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed May 11 03:25:34 2011
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:25:34 +1000
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <C9F0770E.189FA%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Looks great!

Very small grammatical issue ­ in last sentence drop word ³is² before
baffling (easiest solution) or otherwise rewrite the sentence.


Ian 

From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Organization: Consumers International
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:13:45 +0800
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
Subject: Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

   On 10/05/11 21:15, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Can we perhaps set a deadline?
>  
 
 Yes, I'm going to put it to consensus call in the form below (incorporating
the latest minor points).  Expect a poll invitation soon.  For the press
release, we'll basically just lose the "Basic courtesy stuff" at the start
and the "closing and salutations" at the end, and add a heading such as
"Civil society censures French plan for closed meeting on Internet's
future".
 
 Dear President Sarkozy,
 
 The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is an open forum of
individual and organisational civil society actors who came together in the
context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote
global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making (see
http://www.igcaucus.org).
 
 We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8
Internet meeting - the "eG8 Forum" - immediately prior to the G8 Summit in
Deauville, with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit
regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of
states of G8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is
especially important since in the past G8 has set up the global agenda on
many key issues, especially in the information society arena.
 
 We are very concerned about the manner in which the eG8 Forum is being
organised which is ignoring current best practice in public policy making.
It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that has
evolved globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears
that the eG8 Forum is organized by large Industry with access given only to
industry and government actors.  We have also understood that there is a
linkage between donations and invitations.
 
 Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on public
policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting with top
G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related
policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that includes
civil society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global
public interest derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of
society, interests and concerns.
 
 It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially a
global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations,
quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for
architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas
will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G8 countries
engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more
democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal
footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information
Society (WSIS) mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global
Internet related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part
of these global IG related processes. We see the eG8 Forum as a significant
step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder
participation.
 
 The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are
global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need
to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of civil society, business
and technical interests.
 
 We therefore request you, and other G8 leaders, to make the eG8 Forum
genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN Internet
Governance Forum (IGF). We are impressed with the solid support provided by
the G8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The
strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for
full multistakeholder participation in relation to the IGF makes this
current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments'
industry partners is baffling, and unacceptable to the IGC, which advocates
for civil society's Internet governance interests.
 
 Yours sincerely,
 Jeremy Malcolm and Izumi Aizu
 Coordinators
 Internet Governance Caucus
 
 
-- 
 

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 Tomorrow¹s Consumers
 CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong
 

Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the
issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
 http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
 
 Read our  email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
this email unless necessary.
 
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/788028c6/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 uzh.ch  Wed May 11 03:29:22 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:29:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>

Hi

Sorry to be late to the party on this, but before the consensus call starts can we just clarify a key piece?

On May 11, 2011, at 9:13 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> We therefore request you, and other G8 leaders, to make the eG8 Forum genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

That model at present comprises peer-level annual dialogues that unlike G8 meetings do not entail the negotiation of recommendations/declarations etc.  Is that what we're arguing the G8 should do?  Or is the argument that there should be open peer-level participation in the negotiation of "results."?  If that's the goals then it would seem more consistent to mention participation in ICANN as the model, although probably that'd cause indigestion in some circles.  Either way, this seems like the big pay-off sentence of the message, so one could argue it should be clearer on what we'er asking for, no?

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 divina.meigs at orange.fr  Wed May 11 03:36:57 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:36:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] ] Internet G8 meeting : finalizing the text
In-Reply-To: <C9F0770E.189FA%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <C9F00939.20913%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Jeremy, Parminder, Jeanette, and all,

Without wanting to reduce the important current debate, we would appreciate,
on the French side, that you reach a consensus on the final  version as soon
as possible, because I will need to translate it and distribute it to our
various colleagues who have entries with ministries and media. The english
version  (and French one) will also need to be sent to strategic sites,
taking advantage of lots of meetings starting next week in Geneva, such as
WSIS, IGF, CSTD...   :-)

We will also need 2 or 3 sentences to present the gouvernance list, as
journalists are likely to ask for source and origin...

Best
Divina

Le 11/05/11 09:25, « Ian Peter » <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> a écrit :

> Looks great!
> 
> Very small grammatical issue ­ in last sentence drop word ³is² before baffling
> (easiest solution) or otherwise rewrite the sentence.
> 
> 
> Ian 
> 
> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Organization: Consumers International
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:13:45 +0800
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
> 
>    On 10/05/11 21:15, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Can we perhaps set a deadline?
>>  
>  
>  Yes, I'm going to put it to consensus call in the form below (incorporating
> the latest minor points).  Expect a poll invitation soon.  For the press
> release, we'll basically just lose the "Basic courtesy stuff" at the start and
> the "closing and salutations" at the end, and add a heading such as "Civil
> society censures French plan for closed meeting on Internet's future".
>  
>  Dear President Sarkozy,
>  
>  The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is an open forum of
> individual and organisational civil society actors who came together in the
> context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote
> global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making (see
> http://www.igcaucus.org).
>  
>  We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8
> Internet meeting - the "eG8 Forum" - immediately prior to the G8 Summit in
> Deauville, with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit
> regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of
> states of G8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is
> especially important since in the past G8 has set up the global agenda on many
> key issues, especially in the information society arena.
>  
>  We are very concerned about the manner in which the eG8 Forum is being
> organised which is ignoring current best practice in public policy making. It
> also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that has
> evolved globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears
> that the eG8 Forum is organized by large Industry with access given only to
> industry and government actors.  We have also understood that there is a
> linkage between donations and invitations.
>  
>  Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on public
> policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting with top G8
> leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related policies
> is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that includes civil society
> actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest
> derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society, interests
> and concerns.
>  
>  It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially a
> global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations,
> quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for
> architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas will
> also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G8 countries engage with
> the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more democratic global
> forums where all countries are present at an equal footing. In this
> connection, there is the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
> mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global Internet related
> issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part of these global IG
> related processes. We see the eG8 Forum as a significant step backwards both
> for global democracy and for multistakeholder participation.
>  
>  The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are
> global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need to
> involve all countries, as well as a wide range of civil society, business and
> technical interests.
>  
>  We therefore request you, and other G8 leaders, to make the eG8 Forum
> genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN Internet Governance
> Forum (IGF). We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G8
> countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong
> support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full
> multistakeholder participation in relation to the IGF makes this current
> decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry
> partners is baffling, and unacceptable to the IGC, which advocates for civil
> society's Internet governance interests.
>  
>  Yours sincerely,
>  Jeremy Malcolm and Izumi Aizu
>  Coordinators
>  Internet Governance Caucus
>  
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/98073f74/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 May 11 03:50:46 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:50:46 +0800
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org>

On 11/05/11 15:29, William Drake wrote:
> Sorry to be late to the party on this, but before the consensus call starts can we just clarify a key piece?

Sorry, I jumped the gun.

> That model at present comprises peer-level annual dialogues that unlike G8 meetings do not entail the negotiation of recommendations/declarations etc.  Is that what we're arguing the G8 should do?  Or is the argument that there should be open peer-level participation in the negotiation of "results."?  If that's the goals then it would seem more consistent to mention participation in ICANN as the model, although probably that'd cause indigestion in some circles.  Either way, this seems like the big pay-off sentence of the message, so one could argue it should be clearer on what we'er asking for, no?

The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the IGF.
In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper.  So I don't
see that there is an inconsistency 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_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/caaedafc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/caaedafc/attachment.bin>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Wed May 11 04:39:54 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 10:39:54 +0200
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>



On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> 
> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper.  So I don't see that there is an inconsistency here.

I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68 summits,  For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts. And the news reportage on this one http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may says  The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived to generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,

Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been fully vetted with counterpart countries.  In this context, it'd be surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled.  And if so, then the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?

Or maybe I'm missing something….

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/7fc3d0c5/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 meryem at marzouki.info  Wed May 11 05:38:50 2011
From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 11:38:50 +0200
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>

Hi all,

Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!

I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the eG8 conclusions.

But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far. This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8 Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the G8 and not the G20.

Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi could draft a good sentence to express this point.

BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at: http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.

Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?

Best,
Meryem

Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :

> 
> 
> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> 
>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper.  So I don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
> 
> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68 summits,  For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts. And the news reportage on this one http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may says  The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived to generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,
> 
> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been fully vetted with counterpart countries.  In this context, it'd be surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled.  And if so, then the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
> 
> Or maybe I'm missing something….
> 
> 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
> 

--
Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
Email: meryem at marzouki.info
Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/2caba942/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  Wed May 11 05:56:51 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 11:56:51 +0200
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu>

Hi,

I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has 
started.

I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the 
statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our 
preferred group to address Internet policies.

jeanette

On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>
> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
> eG8 conclusions.
>
> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
> G8 and not the G20.
>
> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>
> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>
> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>
> Best,
> Meryem
>
> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>
>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>> And the news reportage on this one
>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>> *
>> *
>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>
>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>>
>> Bill
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.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 meryem at marzouki.info  Wed May 11 05:59:30 2011
From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 11:59:30 +0200
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA31B@marzouki.info>

And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
Meryem

Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has started.
> 
> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our preferred group to address Internet policies.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>> 
>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>> eG8 conclusions.
>> 
>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
>> G8 and not the G20.
>> 
>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>> 
>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>> 
>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>> 
>> Best,
>> Meryem
>> 
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>> 
>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>> 
>>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.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
> 

--
Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
Email: meryem at marzouki.info
Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.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 william.drake at uzh.ch  Wed May 11 07:41:16 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 13:41:16 +0200
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <5AE2B945-8141-4367-BB40-3F56B254D3F9@uzh.ch>



On May 11, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote:

>  think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the eG8 conclusions.

What I said was that If the eG8 aspires to advance conclusions as you suggest, the IGF, which is not currently set up to advance conclusions, might not be the best model for its activities.  Doesn't matter.

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 11 08:19:00 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 14:19:00 +0200
Subject: AW: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
 <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
 <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
 <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
 <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
 <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu>
 <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>
 <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>
 <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>
 <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
 <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
 <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu>
 <"8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA 31B"@marzouki.info>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF81@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Ig you go to the G 20 website and click "The French Priorities" there is nothing related to the Internet. This is a an interesting gap. Intentionally? They did just forget it? Or they do not want to talk about the Internet with Brasil, India and China?   The G 20 summit is planned for Cannes in November 2011. Another nice "film festivalö" and an opportonity for a stresstext how serious MS in IG is taken by governments.  
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Meryem Marzouki
Gesendet: Mi 11.05.2011 11:59
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting



And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
Meryem

Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has started.
>
> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our preferred group to address Internet policies.
>
> jeanette
>
> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>
>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>> eG8 conclusions.
>>
>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
>> G8 and not the G20.
>>
>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>
>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>> http://www.g20-g8.com <http://www.g20-g8.com/> , and there's an English version available.
>>
>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>
>> Best,
>> Meryem
>>
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>
>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>
>>> Or maybe I'm missing something....
>>>
>>> Bill
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/> >
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org <http://www.iris.sgdg.org/> >
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org <http://www.edri.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
>

--
Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
Email: meryem at marzouki.info
Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed May 11 08:24:28 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:24:28 -0300
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA31B@marzouki.info>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
	<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
	<20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net>
	<4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
	<c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
	<4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
	<F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
	<4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu>
	<4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
	<4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>
	<7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>
	<4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net>
	<4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>
	<4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>
	<34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
	<4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org>
	<A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
	<E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
	<4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu>
	<8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA31B@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com>

Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I
believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are
advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and
genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded
from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a
way of political pressure.

Marília

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info>wrote:

> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
> Meryem
>
> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has
> started.
> >
> > I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the
> statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our
> preferred group to address Internet policies.
> >
> > jeanette
> >
> > On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
> >>
> >> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
> >> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
> >> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
> >> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
> >> eG8 conclusions.
> >>
> >> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
> >> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
> >> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
> >> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
> >> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
> >> G8 and not the G20.
> >>
> >> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
> >> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
> >> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
> >> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
> >> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
> >> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
> >> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
> >> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
> >>
> >> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
> >> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
> >>
> >> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
> >> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Meryem
> >>
> >> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
> >>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
> >>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
> >>>
> >>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
> >>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
> >>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
> >>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
> >>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
> >>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
> >>> And the news reportage on this one
> >>>
> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
> >>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
> >>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
> >>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
> >>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
> >>> *
> >>> *
> >>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
> >>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
> >>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
> >>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
> >>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
> >>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
> >>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
> >>>
> >>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
> >>>
> >>> Bill
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> >> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
> >> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
> >> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> >> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
> >> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.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
> >
>
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/ea979898/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 ella.com  Wed May 11 08:36:04 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 05:36:04 -0700
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-!
 1475755DA31B@marzouki.info> <BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>

Hi,

I am not sure I understand the suggestion.  Is that that we suggest that they not have a eG8 but have an 'eG20' instead?

As far as I understand the eG8 is already planned and the some people/organizations already have their invitations.  We want invitations for civil society becasue we want a seat at any table where these issues are being discussed on a global basis.

The issue of G8 versus G20 would be a different one and one that at least for the moment is a bit late in relations to this event.

Of course if there is a 'eG20', we should have argue for a seat at that table.

a.



On 11 May 2011, at 05:24, Marilia Maciel wrote:

> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a way of political pressure.
> 
> Marília
> 
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info> wrote:
> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
> Meryem
> 
> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has started.
> >
> > I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our preferred group to address Internet policies.
> >
> > jeanette
> >
> > On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
> >>
> >> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
> >> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
> >> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
> >> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
> >> eG8 conclusions.
> >>
> >> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
> >> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
> >> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
> >> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
> >> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
> >> G8 and not the G20.
> >>
> >> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
> >> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
> >> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
> >> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
> >> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
> >> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
> >> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
> >> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
> >>
> >> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
> >> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
> >>
> >> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
> >> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Meryem
> >>
> >> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
> >>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
> >>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
> >>>
> >>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
> >>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
> >>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
> >>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
> >>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
> >>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
> >>> And the news reportage on this one
> >>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
> >>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
> >>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
> >>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
> >>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
> >>> *
> >>> *
> >>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
> >>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
> >>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
> >>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
> >>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
> >>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
> >>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
> >>>
> >>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
> >>>
> >>> Bill
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> >> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
> >> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
> >> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> >> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
> >> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.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
> >
> 
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.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
> 

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

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

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


From william.drake at uzh.ch  Wed May 11 08:51:39 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 14:51:39 +0200
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
Message-ID: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>

Hello,

While I gather the level of meatspace participation by IGF types will be rather low next week in Geneva, all those who are making the trip would be most welcome to attend a workshop I've organized in the WSIS Forum.  There will be remote participation available as well through the forum site http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have register for this), a twitter feed, and so on.

The workshop will be held in the Governing Body Room (seems appropriate) of The International Labor Organization from 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May 2011.  The idea is to contribute to the inchoate debate on what kinds of institutional structures would be most appropriate in tackling key global governance issues going forward.  For example, rather than just saying on political/normative grounds that we prefer multistakeholderism or intergovernmentalism, it would be useful to draw on the relevant analytical literatures and practical experiences to arrive at some principled bases for selecting institutional arrangements that are optimized to particular functional problems.  This would seem to be of particular relevance at a time when parties are proposing new or revised global governance arrangements on various fronts, e.g. enhanced cooperation, the IANA contract, the COE initiative on crossborder Internet harm, the governance of the Internet of Things, the debate on revising the International Telecom Regulations to cover the Internet, the development agenda discussion, current intellectual property and digital trade initiatives, even the DC on Rights and Principles initiative for that matter.  What models are best suited to which of these issue-sets?


Description follows:

Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance

The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a significant increase in the number and variety of governance arrangements.  Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance, multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of independent practices.  These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes they possess.

How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance challenges?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms of cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency, transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness, and public interest orientation?  Are there any generalizable lessons that they could learn from one another?  How well do today’s mechanisms cohere into an strong and effective global governance architecture?  This workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and related questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT global governance.

Speakers

Dr. William J. Drake  [organizer & moderator]
International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division
Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
University of Zurich, Switzerland

Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen
Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications
South Africa

Mr. Alvaro Galvani
Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
Government of Brazil

Mr. Markus Kummer
Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society
Switzerland 

Prof. Michael Latzer
Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division
Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
University of Zurich, Switzerland

Ms. Nermine El Saadany
Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
Government of Egypt

Mr. Thomas Schneider
Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of Communications 
Government of Switzerland


We are hoping for a lively interactive discussion with no serial talking head presentations of pre-prepared speeches and ample time for interventions from the floor and remote.  So if this is of interest, please do join us.

I might add that this workshop is linked to a similarly constructed one I've proposed for Nairobi, although that one would have a somewhat different panel-line up and focus a bit more narrowly on global IG. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178  It should be interesting and instructive to address roughly the same issues in the two different venues with two different audiences…

Best,

Bill


--Please note new email address--

***************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch
www.williamdrake.org
****************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/ecc1b1aa/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  Wed May 11 09:15:47 2011
From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:15:47 -0400
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
	<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
	<20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net>
	<4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
	<c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
	<4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
	<F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
	<4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu>
	<4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
	<4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>
	<7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>
	<4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net>
	<4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>
	<4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>
	<34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
	<4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org>
	<A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
	<E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
	<4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu>
	<8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA31B@marzouki.info>
	<BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikshQQJ1xrpXTyn64fGjL9=AMf1Dw@mail.gmail.com>

Process is all-important.  Elections are pure process, policy and
law-making are pure process.  Without an appropriate and legitimate
process, we have nothing.  Without legitimate process we have either
(1) Garbage in, garbage out, or (2)  We put good "meat" in (to a
defectively processing meat grinder), and get garbage out.

Now, we all tend to consider the views of opponents (or the opponents
wishing to speak or vote that we ever so "humbly" consider to be
uninformed) to be "garbage in."  But to deny the right of a say or of
a vote on any basis is to deny freedom to those who do not have the
vote or the say, because without the right to make a mistake or
advocate a wrongheaded view one is certainly not "free" -- one is
managed or controlled like a young child out of fear the young child
will make too many dangerous errors.  Thus universal suffrage, or as
close to it as we can possibly get at any given moment, is the only
pathway to policy legitimacy.

I've spoken before about the shortcomings of multistakeholderism - it
was derived directly from corporate governance and is itself still
stacked in favor of corporate interests, albeit less so than
non-multistakeholder approaches.  I can support the letter, but only
in the understanding that it is a step forward under present
circumstances and by no means the ultimate goal.

Alternatively, whether or not IGC is invited to the table, any
"policy" or "law" that comes out of a limited process like a G8 is
subject to being questioned by any who were not at the G8 table (and
any who consider their democratic processes within a G8 country as
having been  unduly compromised).  At least opening up to a
multistakeholder approach mitigates (though it does not at all
eliminate) the problem of legitimacy.

Making policy or law and then enforcing it against those without a
right of representation is a mere act of force, not one of legitimate
law.  It is always good to ask for, and insist on, a proper process.
Without it, what do we have?

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On 5/11/11, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I
> believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are
> advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and
> genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded
> from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a
> way of political pressure.
>
> Marília
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki
> <meryem at marzouki.info>wrote:
>
>> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
>> Meryem
>>
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has
>> started.
>> >
>> > I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the
>> statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our
>> preferred group to address Internet policies.
>> >
>> > jeanette
>> >
>> > On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>> >>
>> >> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because,
>> >> as
>> >> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>> >> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8
>> >> will
>> >> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>> >> eG8 conclusions.
>> >>
>> >> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>> >> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so
>> >> far.
>> >> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>> >> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>> >> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under
>> >> the
>> >> G8 and not the G20.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>> >> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>> >> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>> >> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>> >> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments
>> >> from
>> >> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>> >> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>> >> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>> >>
>> >> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>> >> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>> >>
>> >> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>> >> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Meryem
>> >>
>> >> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>> >>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>> >>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>> >>>
>> >>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>> >>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>> >>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>> >>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>> >>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>> >>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>> >>> And the news reportage on this one
>> >>>
>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>> >>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>> >>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>> >>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>> >>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>> >>> *
>> >>> *
>> >>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>> >>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>> >>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>> >>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>> >>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>> >>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>> >>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>> >>>
>> >>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>> >>>
>> >>> Bill
>> >>> ____________________________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> >> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>> >> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>> >> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> >> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>> >> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.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
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.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
>


-- 
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 parminder at itforchange.net  Wed May 11 09:46:51 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 19:16:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <4DCA934B.6060908@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 11 May 2011 12:59 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Sorry to be late to the party on this, but before the consensus call starts can we just clarify a key piece?
>
> On May 11, 2011, at 9:13 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>> We therefore request you, and other G8 leaders, to make the eG8 Forum genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
> That model at present comprises peer-level annual dialogues that unlike G8 meetings do not entail the negotiation of recommendations/declarations etc.  Is that what we're arguing the G8 should do?
Hi Bill

As Jeremy explains we refer to the eG8 meeting, which is supposed to be 
a consultative forum for inputting into the formal G 8 meeting. And for 
me, IGF is nothing if not a policy participation / consultation forum 
for global Internet related policies. How do you see IGF, if not that?

The eG 8 website ( http://www.eg8forum.com/faq_EN.html ) says

"The Forum is a platform providing major stakeholders in the digital 
economy a chance to debate prior to the Deauville summit....... The G8 
Heads of State and Government meeting in Deauville will receive the 
inputs from the e-G8 Forum's proceedings."

Looks very much that IGF model should be applicable here.



> Or is the argument that there should be open peer-level participation in the negotiation of "results."?  If that's the goals then it would seem more consistent to mention participation in ICANN as the model, although probably that'd cause indigestion in some circles.

Since I am one of those whose digestive juices are going to be ill 
served by any such suggestion, can you please explain how ICANN can be a 
model for the kind of Internet policy issues that are on the agenda of 
eG8. ICANN's model seems to me made only for dealing with somewhat 
narrow technical issues, or thereabout. And it hardly does very well - 
democratic participation wise, even in dealing with those issues. Since 
you clearly suggest that ICANN model could likely be suggested in the 
present case, I am very interesting to know how would this model work 
for the kind of issues that eG8 is proposing to look into. For this 
purpose pl see the quotes below from eG8 fact sheet, also enclosed.

    The e-G8 Forum will address how traditional sectors are transforming
    under the influence of information technologies and communication.
    It will examine how the digital economy generates innovation,
    particularly in the fields of education, training and life-long
    learning. Other key subjects will include intellectual property in
    the digital era, the growth of e-commerce and the new mobile
    Internet revolution.

    The e-G8 Forum will also address social and philosophical issues
    inherent in the digital ecosystem: economically, the way in which
    companies function at a fundamental level is changing dramatically;
    culturally, digital technologies are transforming the publishing
    industry and artistic communities; and politically, citizens are
    empowered like never before, as the world witnessed with the recent
    revolutions in the Arab world. Finally, the nature of future
    Internet developments will be discussed.

I am genuinely interested if you can suggest, even at a theoretical 
level, how can the ICANN model even begin dealing with these issues.

Parminder

> Either way, this seems like the big pay-off sentence of the message, so one could argue it should be clearer on what we'er asking for, no?
>
> 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
>
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/5403bc80/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/5403bc80/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FactSheet e-G8 ENG.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 239317 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/5403bc80/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 parminder at itforchange.net  Wed May 11 10:00:16 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 19:30:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <4DCA9670.1040000@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 11 May 2011 02:09 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
>
> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the 
>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper.  So 
>> I don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>
> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68 
> summits,  For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's 
> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the 
> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally 
> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations 
> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts. 
> And the news reportage on this one 
> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may says 
>  The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May 
> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o 
> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector 
> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*

All these recs of the side events are made without formal negotiating 
processes, isnt it.... In fact these are good examples to show how 
deliberative processes can arrive at recs, wthout formal negotiations. 
(In fact, you say, you wrote the recs on global digital divide, that 
hardly looks like a negotiation process). In fact it is unfortunate how 
those opposed to strengthening the policy role of the IGF have linked 
IGF recs necessarily to UN style formal negotiations. Since there cannot 
be such negotiations at the IGF, there cant be recs by the IGF - their 
simple but deliberately fallacious logic.
> *
> *
> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from 
> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in 
> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been 
> fully vetted with counterpart countries.  In this context, it'd be 
> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being 
> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled.

We think there will be, and we are afraid of that and are opposing their 
non-inclusive nature. As is suggested from your earlier examples of the 
Okinawa summit, these recs are likely to have a powerful influence on 
what gets decided and announced by the G 8 meeting, which is likely to 
have a powerfu linflcuence on the future of global IG. I am not clear 
why does this not bother you.

>  And if so, then the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should 
> follow, no?

We see IGF as a public participation/ consultation model for Internet 
policy making, and thus we think that its model should be used for all 
forums that are supposed to input public opinion (or that of all 
stakeholders) into formal policy making processes.

parminder
>
> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>
> Bill

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/5e31ebd6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/5e31ebd6/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 11 10:01:50 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 10:01:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCA934B.6060908@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA934B.6060908@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <2EB68054-0F63-4935-B694-951828D61C8D@ella.com>


On 11 May 2011, at 09:46, parminder wrote:

>> 
>> Or is the argument that there should be open peer-level participation in the negotiation of "results."?  If that's the goals then it would seem more consistent to mention participation in ICANN as the model, although probably that'd cause indigestion in some circles.  
> 
> Since I am one of those whose digestive juices are going to be ill served by any such suggestion, can you please explain how ICANN can be a model for the kind of Internet policy issues that are on the agenda of eG8. ICANN's model seems to me made only for dealing with somewhat narrow technical issues, or thereabout. And it hardly does very well - democratic participation wise, even in dealing with those issues. 


I have to endorse this.  While ICANN like the eG8 does very well for the expression of diverse business interests, it has a long way to go before it is a paragon of the multistakeholder model as far as civil society goes.

Yes ICANN is a work in progress and an excellent crucible for developing the model, but civil society has by no means achieved parity.  What the IGC should be asking for is parity and using ICANN as a good example seems to be a bad idea.

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

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

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


From meryem at marzouki.info  Wed May 11 10:24:39 2011
From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 16:24:39 +0200
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-!
 ! 1475755DA31B@marzouki.info> <BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com> <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
Message-ID: <A2AEF699-0646-4825-A7A9-EBD256E8FAAE@marzouki.info>

Hi Avri,

I was thinking of underlining that Internet issues should have been handled by the G20 instead of G8, a point that G20-8 governments could back later on (G20 summit is scheduled 3-4 Nov). A longer term issue.

In terms of (genuinely) requesting a seat a the table, even for the eG8 it's rather late anyway: it should be held on 24-25 mai in Paris, only some days before the G8 itself.

In any case, do you know that the eG8 is currently looking for sponsors? A news article dated May 2 (yes, 2011...) reports that a big communication company is recruiting sponsors. Sponsorship could be 100 000, 250 000 et 500 000 euros. Starting from 250K€, the sponsor will have its brand on all official panels (shown on TV, I assume) and the head of the company will be co-chairman of eG8, i.e. they can participate to plenaries and round table. In summary: you pay, you speak. The scandal is reported here: http://www.journaldunet.com/ebusiness/le-net/sponsors-eg8-0511.shtml, quoting La Tribune, an important economic French newspaper.

Best,
Meryem

Le 11 mai 2011 à 14:36, Avri Doria a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> I am not sure I understand the suggestion.  Is that that we suggest that they not have a eG8 but have an 'eG20' instead?
> 
> As far as I understand the eG8 is already planned and the some people/organizations already have their invitations.  We want invitations for civil society becasue we want a seat at any table where these issues are being discussed on a global basis.
> 
> The issue of G8 versus G20 would be a different one and one that at least for the moment is a bit late in relations to this event.
> 
> Of course if there is a 'eG20', we should have argue for a seat at that table.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 11 May 2011, at 05:24, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> 
>> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a way of political pressure.
>> 
>> Marília
>> 
>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info> wrote:
>> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
>> Meryem
>> 
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has started.
>>> 
>>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our preferred group to address Internet policies.
>>> 
>>> jeanette
>>> 
>>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>>> 
>>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
>>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
>>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>>>> eG8 conclusions.
>>>> 
>>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
>>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
>>>> G8 and not the G20.
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
>>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>>> 
>>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>>>> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>>>> 
>>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Meryem
>>>> 
>>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.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
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.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
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

--
Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
Email: meryem at marzouki.info
Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.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 avri at ella.com  Wed May 11 10:46:40 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 10:46:40 -0400
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <A2AEF699-0646-4825-A7A9-EBD256E8FAAE@marzouki.info>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-!
 ! ! 1475755DA31B@marzouki.info> <BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com> <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com> <A2AEF699-0646-4825-A7A9-EBD256E8FAAE@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <8283BB98-744C-4DAC-A55A-B3118E6B4733@ella.com>

Hi,

I think I agree that the broader the group the better.  But at this point I thought the G8 versus G20 battle was a different issue.  We should definitely find out early if there will be multistakeholder participation in any part of it.  And should mount a timely campaign to make sure we are included.

Thanks for the update on the costs for co-chairing - that is so very typical for something that caters to business: in American slang: 'Show us the love'.  

Do you know if ISOC and others of the Internet Technical Community are having to pay to attend?

a.



On 11 May 2011, at 10:24, Meryem Marzouki wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> 
> I was thinking of underlining that Internet issues should have been handled by the G20 instead of G8, a point that G20-8 governments could back later on (G20 summit is scheduled 3-4 Nov). A longer term issue.
> 
> In terms of (genuinely) requesting a seat a the table, even for the eG8 it's rather late anyway: it should be held on 24-25 mai in Paris, only some days before the G8 itself.
> 
> In any case, do you know that the eG8 is currently looking for sponsors? A news article dated May 2 (yes, 2011...) reports that a big communication company is recruiting sponsors. Sponsorship could be 100 000, 250 000 et 500 000 euros. Starting from 250K€, the sponsor will have its brand on all official panels (shown on TV, I assume) and the head of the company will be co-chairman of eG8, i.e. they can participate to plenaries and round table. In summary: you pay, you speak. The scandal is reported here: http://www.journaldunet.com/ebusiness/le-net/sponsors-eg8-0511.shtml, quoting La Tribune, an important economic French newspaper.
> 
> Best,
> Meryem
> 
> Le 11 mai 2011 à 14:36, Avri Doria a écrit :
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I am not sure I understand the suggestion.  Is that that we suggest that they not have a eG8 but have an 'eG20' instead?
>> 
>> As far as I understand the eG8 is already planned and the some people/organizations already have their invitations.  We want invitations for civil society becasue we want a seat at any table where these issues are being discussed on a global basis.
>> 
>> The issue of G8 versus G20 would be a different one and one that at least for the moment is a bit late in relations to this event.
>> 
>> Of course if there is a 'eG20', we should have argue for a seat at that table.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11 May 2011, at 05:24, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>> 
>>> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a way of political pressure.
>>> 
>>> Marília
>>> 
>>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info> wrote:
>>> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
>>> Meryem
>>> 
>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has started.
>>>> 
>>>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our preferred group to address Internet policies.
>>>> 
>>>> jeanette
>>>> 
>>>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
>>>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>>>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
>>>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>>>>> eG8 conclusions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>>>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
>>>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>>>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>>>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
>>>>> G8 and not the G20.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>>>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>>>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>>>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>>>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
>>>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>>>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>>>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>>>> 
>>>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>>>>> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>>>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Meryem
>>>>> 
>>>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>>>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>>>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>>>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>>>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>>>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>>>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>>>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>>>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>>>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.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
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed May 11 10:47:21 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 11:47:21 -0300
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <A2AEF699-0646-4825-A7A9-EBD256E8FAAE@marzouki.info>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
	<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
	<20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net>
	<4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
	<c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
	<4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
	<F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
	<4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu>
	<4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
	<4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>
	<7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>
	<4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net>
	<4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>
	<4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>
	<34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
	<4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org>
	<A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
	<E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
	<4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu>
	<BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com>
	<C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
	<A2AEF699-0646-4825-A7A9-EBD256E8FAAE@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikp_s_OXtx_YycymS-fGMPdiRYSzg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for this very interesting and useful information, Maryem.It is
troubling to notice how the financial crisis has been the reason (or the
perfect excuse) for some governments to fall definately into the arms of the
business sector. This promiscuity we are watnessing is highly questionable
from a moral and from a democratic perspective.

The good thing about it is that the masks are starting to fall and we see
their contradictory positions. It has always been disturbing to me, for
instance, to watch some European governments paying lip service to
principles, such as access to knowledge and information in the IGF, and see
how they behave in WIPO, totally coopted by the copyright industry of their
countries.

Marília

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info>wrote:

> Hi Avri,
>
> I was thinking of underlining that Internet issues should have been handled
> by the G20 instead of G8, a point that G20-8 governments could back later on
> (G20 summit is scheduled 3-4 Nov). A longer term issue.
>
> In terms of (genuinely) requesting a seat a the table, even for the eG8
> it's rather late anyway: it should be held on 24-25 mai in Paris, only some
> days before the G8 itself.
>
> In any case, do you know that the eG8 is currently looking for sponsors? A
> news article dated May 2 (yes, 2011...) reports that a big communication
> company is recruiting sponsors. Sponsorship could be 100 000, 250 000 et 500
> 000 euros. Starting from 250K€, the sponsor will have its brand on all
> official panels (shown on TV, I assume) and the head of the company will be
> co-chairman of eG8, i.e. they can participate to plenaries and round table.
> In summary: you pay, you speak. The scandal is reported here:
> http://www.journaldunet.com/ebusiness/le-net/sponsors-eg8-0511.shtml,
> quoting La Tribune, an important economic French newspaper.
>
> Best,
> Meryem
>
> Le 11 mai 2011 à 14:36, Avri Doria a écrit :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am not sure I understand the suggestion.  Is that that we suggest that
> they not have a eG8 but have an 'eG20' instead?
> >
> > As far as I understand the eG8 is already planned and the some
> people/organizations already have their invitations.  We want invitations
> for civil society becasue we want a seat at any table where these issues are
> being discussed on a global basis.
> >
> > The issue of G8 versus G20 would be a different one and one that at least
> for the moment is a bit late in relations to this event.
> >
> > Of course if there is a 'eG20', we should have argue for a seat at that
> table.
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11 May 2011, at 05:24, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> >
> >> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I
> believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are
> advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and
> genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded
> from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a
> way of political pressure.
> >>
> >> Marília
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info>
> wrote:
> >> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
> >> Meryem
> >>
> >> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has
> started.
> >>>
> >>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the
> statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our
> preferred group to address Internet policies.
> >>>
> >>> jeanette
> >>>
> >>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because,
> as
> >>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
> >>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8
> will
> >>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
> >>>> eG8 conclusions.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
> >>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so
> far.
> >>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
> >>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November
> in
> >>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under
> the
> >>>> G8 and not the G20.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
> >>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will
> become
> >>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues
> should
> >>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
> >>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments
> from
> >>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
> >>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and
> Izumi
> >>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
> >>>> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
> >>>>
> >>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO
> signatures
> >>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> Meryem
> >>>>
> >>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
> >>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So
> I
> >>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
> >>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
> >>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
> >>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
> >>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly
> declarations
> >>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
> >>>>> And the news reportage on this one
> >>>>>
> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
> >>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
> >>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
> >>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
> >>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
> >>>>> *
> >>>>> *
> >>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
> >>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events
> in
> >>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
> >>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
> >>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
> >>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so,
> then
> >>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bill
> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> >>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
> >>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr
> >
> >>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> >>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
> >>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.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
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> >> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
> >> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
> >> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> >> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.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
> >>
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/247fa22f/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 uzh.ch  Wed May 11 12:13:06 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 18:13:06 +0200
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCA934B.6060908@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA934B.6060908@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <0D87F124-759B-4A79-BAC6-B7F3D7D341B1@uzh.ch>

Hi Parminder

On May 11, 2011, at 3:46 PM, parminder wrote:

> 
> As Jeremy explains we refer to the eG8 meeting, which is supposed to be a consultative forum for inputting into the formal G 8 meeting. And for me, IGF is nothing if not a policy participation / consultation forum for global Internet related policies. How do you see IGF, if not that?

Again, from what I'd read the idea was for these corporate folks to generate some output recommendations that would be taken into the intergovernmental process, and my point was simply that while the open participatory model of IGF is the right one, it's not currently set up to be able to work out recs that would have any standing with anyone.  For folks who think IGF ought to have that capacity, holding up the current somewhat enfeebled structure as a model to emulate seems an odd choice.
>> Or is the argument that there should be open peer-level participation in the negotiation of "results."?  If that's the goals then it would seem more consistent to mention participation in ICANN as the model, although probably that'd cause indigestion in some circles.  
> Since I am one of those whose digestive juices are going to be ill served by any such suggestion, can you please explain how ICANN can be a model for the kind of Internet policy issues that are on the agenda of eG8. ICANN's model seems to me made only for dealing with somewhat narrow technical issues, or thereabout. And it hardly does very well - democratic participation wise, even in dealing with those issues. Since you clearly suggest that ICANN model could likely be suggested in the present case, I am very interesting to know how would this model work for the kind of issues that eG8 is proposing to look into. For this purpose pl see the quotes below from eG8 fact sheet, also enclosed.

We can agree to disagree on whether what ICANN does is just narrow and technical.  My point is simply that there are institutional structures that allows CS inputs to be brought into the decision making process on nominally/formally equal terms...formally being a big caveat, since of course CS has the least power and outcomes usually are driven more by the competition between different industry factions (which is pervasive in ICANN…I'm always amazed to read characterizations of business as being a singular block with a singular perspective…these folks are at each others' throats half the time).  On the other hand, one could also point to a number of cases were CS/noncommercial ideas drove agendas and led to outcomes that wouldn't have happened in their absence.  CS in ICANN and IGF is actually a rather interesting comparison...

Bottom line, institutional rules and decision making procedures matter, and IGF presently lacks the machinery that would allow for working out "institution"-wide recs in which CS inputs have to be taken on board and at least responded to when making decisions.  We can't even get agreement for mechanisms at a sub-instituiton level, like working groups that can make recs.  So while the peer-level participation half is great, the lack of mechanisms for working out outcomes based on due process doesn't seem like a good answer.


On May 11, 2011, at 4:00 PM, parminder wrote:

[two messages 14 min apart with the same subject line…you have a lot of bandwidth for this...glad I read both…]

> 
> On Wednesday 11 May 2011 02:09 PM, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> 
>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper.  So I don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>> 
>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68 summits,  For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts. And the news reportage on this one http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may says  The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived to generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,
> 
> All these recs of the side events are made without formal negotiating processes, isnt it.... In fact these are good examples to show how deliberative processes can arrive at recs, wthout formal negotiations. (In fact, you say, you wrote the recs on global digital divide, that hardly looks like a negotiation process).

You must be joking.  There was a TF with reps from like 34 companies plus speaking observers including ten international organizations, foreign policy think tanks, university programs and foundations.  Many different preferences on some points and the process of negotiating to consensus required months of meetings.  I just wrote it up, sneaked in some additional bits, and sold it back to them.

> In fact it is unfortunate how those opposed to strengthening the policy role of the IGF have linked IGF recs necessarily to UN style formal negotiations. Since there cannot be such negotiations at the IGF, there cant be recs by the IGF - their simple but deliberately fallacious logic. 

Yes there are a lot of actors who anticipate, based on WSIS and the wider history of global governance, that reconciling highly diverse views and preferences would require formal negotiations.  Aside from hoping that working groups could do things in a more rational and effective way, or proposing loose sense of the room messages, what have we offered them in the way of other models to work with?  How might one architect a collaborative process that sidestepped the kinds of dynamics they fear?  I don't think we (IGC, CS) have really contributed much out of the box thinking on this that would provide much basis for concerned parties to unclench, and meanwhile whenever governments speak to the matter they throw it back into the intergovernmental negotiation frame, not so helpful. So we end up with polarization and immobility.  It's reminiscent of the situation circa 1994 with the definition of IG, it took orthogonal third way thinking from CS to uncork the thing.  We haven't done the same on "outcomes."
>> 
>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been fully vetted with counterpart countries.  In this context, it'd be surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled.
> 
> We think there will be, and we are afraid of that and are opposing their non-inclusive nature. As is suggested from your earlier examples of the Okinawa summit, these recs are likely to have a powerful influence on what gets decided and announced by the G 8 meeting, which is likely to have a powerfu linflcuence on the future of global IG. I am not clear why does this not bother you. 

You'd be a lot clearer if you eschewed misreading things into what I say.  I didn't say it doesn't bother me, it does.  All I said was holding up IGF's dysfunctional non-decision making model as a solution to the need for multistakeholder decision making seemed odd.
> 
>>  And if so, then the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
> 
> We see IGF as a public participation/ consultation model for Internet policy making, and thus we think that its model should be used for all forums that are supposed to input public opinion (or that of all stakeholders) into formal policy making processes. 

Can't you separate the issues of participation rights and decision making procedures?  IGF's great for the former, has bupkis for the latter.

We're actually more or less on the same page, even if you refuse to accept it…I just think we need to have serious discussions about alternative decision making/consensus building modalities.  That's part of why I'm doing workshops on institutional design and choice.  

Cheers

Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/72a9dcc1/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  Wed May 11 13:07:05 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 19:07:05 +0200
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA31B@marzouki.info>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA31B@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <4DCAC239.5050606@wzb.eu>

Sorry, I was offline most of the day. Marilia said it all in her reply:

Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I 
believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are 
advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and 
genuinely multistakeholder.

While G20 would be marginally more representative it is not 
categorically different from the G8. I wouldn't want them either to 
develop Internet policies on our behalf without consulting/integrating us.

jeanette

On 11.05.2011 11:59, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
> Meryem
>
> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has started.
>>
>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our preferred group to address Internet policies.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>>
>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>>> eG8 conclusions.
>>>
>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
>>> G8 and not the G20.
>>>
>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>>
>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>>> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>>>
>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Meryem
>>>
>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>>
>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info<mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr<http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org<http://www.edri.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
>>
>
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.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 meryem at marzouki.info  Wed May 11 14:06:58 2011
From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 20:06:58 +0200
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <8283BB98-744C-4DAC-A55A-B3118E6B4733@ella.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-!
 ! ! ! 1475755DA31B@marzouki.info> <BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com> <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com> <A2AEF699-0646-4825-A7A9-EBD256E8FAAE@marzouki.info> <8283BB98-744C-4DAC-A55A-B3118E6B4733@ella.com>
Message-ID: <0C771AFA-4BA0-447A-A17E-B0514FE47B37@marzouki.info>


Le 11 mai 2011 à 16:46, Avri Doria a écrit :

> 
> Do you know if ISOC and others of the Internet Technical Community are having to pay to attend?

No idea. Note that you don't *have to* pay to attend, it's by invitation. But if you can afford to "sponsor", then as far as I undertsand it gives you the right to attend (and speak).

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

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

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


From meryem at marzouki.info  Wed May 11 14:21:00 2011
From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 20:21:00 +0200
Subject: [governance] Rupert Murdoch confirmed participation at eG8
Message-ID: <FE308C0B-1512-4DC6-8E65-7ADDEFCC9AFE@marzouki.info>

It's here (in French)
http://www.lesechos.fr/investisseurs/actualites-boursieres/0201362365713-le-clan-murdoch-en-force-au-eg8-forum.htm

The eG8 is chaired and organized by Publicis' president and the theme is 'The Internet as growth accelerator' (more or less: Internet l'accélérateur de croissance in French)..

This other article (in English) says, though, that there are 3 big themes under this general "accelerating growth" thing, among them Internet and Human rights (ah ah ah) and Internet and privacy (Google's is confirmed too;))

Now in this article (in French), there's merely one session on "changing the society" (humm..), the rest being more about business opportunities, innovation, Internet Future, Intellectual property, etc.: http://frenchweb.fr/e-g8-forum-2011-le-programme-de-la-conference-internet/

Meryem

--
Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
Email: meryem at marzouki.info
Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.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  Wed May 11 14:57:57 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 06:57:57 +1200
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>

This is excellent. Will there be remote participation?



On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:51 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> Hello,
> While I gather the level of meatspace participation by IGF types will be
> rather low next week in Geneva, all those who are making the trip would be
> most welcome to attend a workshop I've organized in the WSIS Forum.  There
> will be remote participation available as well through the forum
> site http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have
> register for this), a twitter feed, and so on.
> The workshop will be held in the Governing Body Room (seems appropriate)
> of The International Labor Organization from 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May 2011.
>  The idea is to contribute to the inchoate debate on what kinds of
> institutional structures would be most appropriate in tackling key global
> governance issues going forward.  For example, rather than just saying on
> political/normative grounds that we prefer multistakeholderism or
> intergovernmentalism, it would be useful to draw on the relevant analytical
> literatures and practical experiences to arrive at some principled bases for
> selecting institutional arrangements that are optimized to particular
> functional problems.  This would seem to be of particular relevance at a
> time when parties are proposing new or revised global governance
> arrangements on various fronts, e.g. enhanced cooperation, the IANA
> contract, the COE initiative on crossborder Internet harm, the governance of
> the Internet of Things, the debate on revising the International Telecom
> Regulations to cover the Internet, the development agenda discussion,
> current intellectual property and digital trade initiatives, even the DC on
> Rights and Principles initiative for that matter.  What models are best
> suited to which of these issue-sets?
>
> Description follows:
> Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance
>
> The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a
> significant increase in the number and variety of governance
> arrangements.  Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by
> plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by
> unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance,
> multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of independent
> practices.  These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the
> collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes
> they possess.
>
> How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative
> merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance
> challenges?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms of
> cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency,
> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness,
> and public interest orientation?  Are there any generalizable lessons that
> they could learn from one another?  How well do today’s mechanisms cohere
> into an strong and effective global governance architecture?  This
> workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and related
> questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT
> global governance.
>
> Speakers
>
> Dr. William J. Drake  [organizer & moderator]
> International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division
> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>
> Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen
> Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications
> South Africa
>
> Mr. Alvaro Galvani
> Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
> Government of Brazil
>
> Mr. Markus Kummer
> Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society
> Switzerland
>
> Prof. Michael Latzer
> Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division
> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>
> Ms. Nermine El Saadany
> Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications and
> Information Technology
> Government of Egypt
>
> Mr. Thomas Schneider
> Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of
> Communications
> Government of Switzerland
>
> We are hoping for a lively interactive discussion with no serial talking
> head presentations of pre-prepared speeches and ample time for interventions
> from the floor and remote.  So if this is of interest, please do join us.
> I might add that this workshop is linked to a similarly constructed one I've
> proposed for Nairobi, although that one would have a somewhat different
> panel-line up and focus a bit more narrowly on global
> IG. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178  It
> should be interesting and instructive to address roughly the same issues in
> the two different venues with two different audiences…
> Best,
> Bill
>
> --Please note new email address--
>
> ***************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch
> www.williamdrake.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
>
>
>



-- 
Sala

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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Wed May 11 15:10:06 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:10:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <14320FD4-C5BC-4C58-B88D-94928AB0A114@ella.com>

Hi,

As someone else who cannot come to Geneva, I hope so.  I expect ITU would be as attentive to the need to remote participation as the IGF and other organization involved in Internet governance.

a.

On 11 May 2011, at 14:57, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:

> This is excellent. Will there be remote participation?
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:51 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> While I gather the level of meatspace participation by IGF types will be
>> rather low next week in Geneva, all those who are making the trip would be
>> most welcome to attend a workshop I've organized in the WSIS Forum.  There
>> will be remote participation available as well through the forum
>> site http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have
>> register for this), a twitter feed, and so on.
>> The workshop will be held in the Governing Body Room (seems appropriate)
>> of The International Labor Organization from 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May 2011.
>>  The idea is to contribute to the inchoate debate on what kinds of
>> institutional structures would be most appropriate in tackling key global
>> governance issues going forward.  For example, rather than just saying on
>> political/normative grounds that we prefer multistakeholderism or
>> intergovernmentalism, it would be useful to draw on the relevant analytical
>> literatures and practical experiences to arrive at some principled bases for
>> selecting institutional arrangements that are optimized to particular
>> functional problems.  This would seem to be of particular relevance at a
>> time when parties are proposing new or revised global governance
>> arrangements on various fronts, e.g. enhanced cooperation, the IANA
>> contract, the COE initiative on crossborder Internet harm, the governance of
>> the Internet of Things, the debate on revising the International Telecom
>> Regulations to cover the Internet, the development agenda discussion,
>> current intellectual property and digital trade initiatives, even the DC on
>> Rights and Principles initiative for that matter.  What models are best
>> suited to which of these issue-sets?
>> 
>> Description follows:
>> Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance
>> 
>> The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a
>> significant increase in the number and variety of governance
>> arrangements.  Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by
>> plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by
>> unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance,
>> multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of independent
>> practices.  These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the
>> collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes
>> they possess.
>> 
>> How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative
>> merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance
>> challenges?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms of
>> cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency,
>> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness,
>> and public interest orientation?  Are there any generalizable lessons that
>> they could learn from one another?  How well do today’s mechanisms cohere
>> into an strong and effective global governance architecture?  This
>> workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and related
>> questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT
>> global governance.
>> 
>> Speakers
>> 
>> Dr. William J. Drake  [organizer & moderator]
>> International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division
>> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> 
>> Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications
>> South Africa
>> 
>> Mr. Alvaro Galvani
>> Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
>> Government of Brazil
>> 
>> Mr. Markus Kummer
>> Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society
>> Switzerland
>> 
>> Prof. Michael Latzer
>> Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division
>> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> 
>> Ms. Nermine El Saadany
>> Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications and
>> Information Technology
>> Government of Egypt
>> 
>> Mr. Thomas Schneider
>> Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of
>> Communications
>> Government of Switzerland
>> 
>> We are hoping for a lively interactive discussion with no serial talking
>> head presentations of pre-prepared speeches and ample time for interventions
>> from the floor and remote.  So if this is of interest, please do join us.
>> I might add that this workshop is linked to a similarly constructed one I've
>> proposed for Nairobi, although that one would have a somewhat different
>> panel-line up and focus a bit more narrowly on global
>> IG. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178  It
>> should be interesting and instructive to address roughly the same issues in
>> the two different venues with two different audiences…
>> Best,
>> Bill
>> 
>> --Please note new email address--
>> 
>> ***************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow
>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>> www.williamdrake.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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sala
> 
> "Stillness in the midst of the noise".
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed May 11 15:26:57 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 03:26:57 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
In-Reply-To: <4DCA16DE.9010600@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <139B0043B4EA4E3BA02D67D4B602BD2A@userPC>

In this context I think that it is useful to try to stretch our CS thinking
back before the neo-liberal onslaught wrecked havoc with the role of the
state in attempting to ensure equity/universailty in areas such as
telecommunications and transport.  In Canada at least, a very great
component of the political and regulatory history of the late 19th and 20th
centuries had to do with developing the means to manage and control
predation in the areas of technology advance in the late 19th
century--electricity, transport, telecommunication--to ensure some degree of
rate (and service) balancing (and non-discrimination) as between regions and
individual consumers(as well in certain instances extended to universality
of access).  In Canada this produced nationalized railways, a national
airline, a national broadcaster, nationalized electricity suppliers,
nationalized telecommunications carriers in certain provinces and very
highly regulated telecoms at the national level.
 
I believe there were similar developments in many other national
jurisdictions.
 
The technology developments and globalization of service provision in a
number of areas of the late 20th century obviated the need for certain of
these state sponsored service provision leading to deregulation and
privatization, although almost certainly not as much as neo-liberal
ideologists have managed to convince/coerce governments and electorates.
 
However, the same techology advances in certain areas--global
communications, virtual public space, the global knowledge sphere--have
resulted in a shifting of the need for regulation/management in the public
interest to the global and away from the national (just as the developments
of the late 19th and early 20th shifted them from the local to the
national).
 
That we don't have institutional or regulatory mechanisms in place (yet) to
manage these is not, I think, because of their nature but rather because of
political immaturity in managing at the global level and from the fierce
resistance (including or even especially at the ideological level) from
those who are benefiting from their current monopoly positions (quite
parallel I would think to the railway etc. robber barons of the 19th
century). 
 
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of parminder
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 1:56 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?




On Wednesday 11 May 2011 01:25 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: 

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:49:24AM -0700,

 Michael Gurstein  <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote 

 a message of 51 lines which said:



I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG

discussions but even from a purely self-interested CS perspective

there is an absolute need to begin to work towards some sort of

global institutional/regulatory framework to ensure the preservation

of a public interest in a global virtual public space and public

capacity for very low cost IP enabled international communications

(a la skype).

I fail to see why the fate of the private company Skype, which

produces a closed software using undocumented proprietary protocols

could be a subject for CS.


In the same way as Google of the closed algorithm is difficult to ignore as
a subject by civil society. Is there anyone here who doesnt use google?
Would MS and Google merging be not a big issue for all us? 


I agree that "preservation of a public interest in a global virtual

public space" and "very low cost IP enabled international

communications" are good goals. But Skype is the very counter-example

of what we should aim for. 

I agree that is the point. But what do you think we should aim for. Not only
as our IP based communication system, but also as our search engine, and our
social networking site,  as out payment gateway ......

The solution lies both in encouraging alternative practises, models and
software/ applications, but as much in right regulatory frameworks. It would
never to be possible to get what we seek without the later. That for me is
one of the biggest IG issue around today. parminder 




Specially, the fact that the source code is

hidden from its users is there to hide shameful practices such as

enrolling users as "supernodes" without asking their advice or even

informing them (see

 
<http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.h
tml>
<http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.h
tml>

and the list in

 <http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>
<http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>).



So, if CS is interested in "preservation of a public interest in a

global virtual public space", it should push the use of open protocols

for instant messaging and voice over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to

encourage closed software.



____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

     governance at lists.cpsr.org

To be removed from the list, visit:

     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing



For all other list information and functions, see:

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

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

     http://www.igcaucus.org/



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






-- 




Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change 
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/> 
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/10d0578d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/10d0578d/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 11 15:54:05 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 07:54:05 +1200
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <14320FD4-C5BC-4C58-B88D-94928AB0A114@ella.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<14320FD4-C5BC-4C58-B88D-94928AB0A114@ella.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTin=9QBC+NOwLC91bPydBVJcdjObEg@mail.gmail.com>

If each of in our regions make the request known through the ITU
Pacific Rep, or ITU Asia etc, they can raise our request for remote
participation. I will ask Gisa from this end.

Sala

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As someone else who cannot come to Geneva, I hope so.  I expect ITU would be as attentive to the need to remote participation as the IGF and other organization involved in Internet governance.
>
> a.
>
> On 11 May 2011, at 14:57, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
>> This is excellent. Will there be remote participation?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:51 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> While I gather the level of meatspace participation by IGF types will be
>>> rather low next week in Geneva, all those who are making the trip would be
>>> most welcome to attend a workshop I've organized in the WSIS Forum.  There
>>> will be remote participation available as well through the forum
>>> site http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have
>>> register for this), a twitter feed, and so on.
>>> The workshop will be held in the Governing Body Room (seems appropriate)
>>> of The International Labor Organization from 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May 2011.
>>>  The idea is to contribute to the inchoate debate on what kinds of
>>> institutional structures would be most appropriate in tackling key global
>>> governance issues going forward.  For example, rather than just saying on
>>> political/normative grounds that we prefer multistakeholderism or
>>> intergovernmentalism, it would be useful to draw on the relevant analytical
>>> literatures and practical experiences to arrive at some principled bases for
>>> selecting institutional arrangements that are optimized to particular
>>> functional problems.  This would seem to be of particular relevance at a
>>> time when parties are proposing new or revised global governance
>>> arrangements on various fronts, e.g. enhanced cooperation, the IANA
>>> contract, the COE initiative on crossborder Internet harm, the governance of
>>> the Internet of Things, the debate on revising the International Telecom
>>> Regulations to cover the Internet, the development agenda discussion,
>>> current intellectual property and digital trade initiatives, even the DC on
>>> Rights and Principles initiative for that matter.  What models are best
>>> suited to which of these issue-sets?
>>>
>>> Description follows:
>>> Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance
>>>
>>> The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a
>>> significant increase in the number and variety of governance
>>> arrangements.  Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by
>>> plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by
>>> unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance,
>>> multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of independent
>>> practices.  These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the
>>> collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes
>>> they possess.
>>>
>>> How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative
>>> merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance
>>> challenges?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms of
>>> cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency,
>>> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness,
>>> and public interest orientation?  Are there any generalizable lessons that
>>> they could learn from one another?  How well do today’s mechanisms cohere
>>> into an strong and effective global governance architecture?  This
>>> workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and related
>>> questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT
>>> global governance.
>>>
>>> Speakers
>>>
>>> Dr. William J. Drake  [organizer & moderator]
>>> International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division
>>> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>
>>> Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen
>>> Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications
>>> South Africa
>>>
>>> Mr. Alvaro Galvani
>>> Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
>>> Government of Brazil
>>>
>>> Mr. Markus Kummer
>>> Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society
>>> Switzerland
>>>
>>> Prof. Michael Latzer
>>> Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division
>>> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>
>>> Ms. Nermine El Saadany
>>> Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications and
>>> Information Technology
>>> Government of Egypt
>>>
>>> Mr. Thomas Schneider
>>> Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of
>>> Communications
>>> Government of Switzerland
>>>
>>> We are hoping for a lively interactive discussion with no serial talking
>>> head presentations of pre-prepared speeches and ample time for interventions
>>> from the floor and remote.  So if this is of interest, please do join us.
>>> I might add that this workshop is linked to a similarly constructed one I've
>>> proposed for Nairobi, although that one would have a somewhat different
>>> panel-line up and focus a bit more narrowly on global
>>> IG. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178  It
>>> should be interesting and instructive to address roughly the same issues in
>>> the two different venues with two different audiences…
>>> Best,
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> --Please note new email address--
>>>
>>> ***************************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> International Fellow
>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>>> www.williamdrake.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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sala
>>
>> "Stillness in the midst of the noise".
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
Sala

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

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

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


From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Wed May 11 16:45:27 2011
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 13:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
Message-ID: <460239.54272.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Thanks to Dr. William Drake
I would like to join the workshop from Pakistan Remotely.
Thanks
Imran Ahmed Shah

On Thu, 12 May 2011 00:54 PKT Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:

>If each of in our regions make the request known through the ITU
>Pacific Rep, or ITU Asia etc, they can raise our request for remote
>participation. I will ask Gisa from this end.
>
>Sala
>
>On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As someone else who cannot come to Geneva, I hope so.  I expect ITU would be as attentive to the need to remote participation as the IGF and other organization involved in Internet governance.
>>
>> a.
>>
>> On 11 May 2011, at 14:57, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>
>>> This is excellent. Will there be remote participation?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:51 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> While I gather the level of meatspace participation by IGF types will be
>>>> rather low next week in Geneva, all those who are making the trip would be
>>>> most welcome to attend a workshop I've organized in the WSIS Forum.  There
>>>> will be remote participation available as well through the forum
>>>> site http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have
>>>> register for this), a twitter feed, and so on.
>>>> The workshop will be held in the Governing Body Room (seems appropriate)
>>>> of The International Labor Organization from 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May 2011.
>>>>  The idea is to contribute to the inchoate debate on what kinds of
>>>> institutional structures would be most appropriate in tackling key global
>>>> governance issues going forward.  For example, rather than just saying on
>>>> political/normative grounds that we prefer multistakeholderism or
>>>> intergovernmentalism, it would be useful to draw on the relevant analytical
>>>> literatures and practical experiences to arrive at some principled bases for
>>>> selecting institutional arrangements that are optimized to particular
>>>> functional problems.  This would seem to be of particular relevance at a
>>>> time when parties are proposing new or revised global governance
>>>> arrangements on various fronts, e.g. enhanced cooperation, the IANA
>>>> contract, the COE initiative on crossborder Internet harm, the governance of
>>>> the Internet of Things, the debate on revising the International Telecom
>>>> Regulations to cover the Internet, the development agenda discussion,
>>>> current intellectual property and digital trade initiatives, even the DC on
>>>> Rights and Principles initiative for that matter.  What models are best
>>>> suited to which of these issue-sets?
>>>>
>>>> Description follows:
>>>> Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance
>>>>
>>>> The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a
>>>> significant increase in the number and variety of governance
>>>> arrangements.  Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by
>>>> plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by
>>>> unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance,
>>>> multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of independent
>>>> practices.  These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the
>>>> collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes
>>>> they possess.
>>>>
>>>> How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative
>>>> merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance
>>>> challenges?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms of
>>>> cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency,
>>>> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness,
>>>> and public interest orientation?  Are there any generalizable lessons that
>>>> they could learn from one another?  How well do today’s mechanisms cohere
>>>> into an strong and effective global governance architecture?  This
>>>> workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and related
>>>> questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT
>>>> global governance.
>>>>
>>>> Speakers
>>>>
>>>> Dr. William J. Drake  [organizer & moderator]
>>>> International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division
>>>> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>>
>>>> Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen
>>>> Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications
>>>> South Africa
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Alvaro Galvani
>>>> Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
>>>> Government of Brazil
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Markus Kummer
>>>> Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society
>>>> Switzerland
>>>>
>>>> Prof. Michael Latzer
>>>> Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division
>>>> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>>
>>>> Ms. Nermine El Saadany
>>>> Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications and
>>>> Information Technology
>>>> Government of Egypt
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Thomas Schneider
>>>> Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of
>>>> Communications
>>>> Government of Switzerland
>>>>
>>>> We are hoping for a lively interactive discussion with no serial talking
>>>> head presentations of pre-prepared speeches and ample time for interventions
>>>> from the floor and remote.  So if this is of interest, please do join us.
>>>> I might add that this workshop is linked to a similarly constructed one I've
>>>> proposed for Nairobi, although that one would have a somewhat different
>>>> panel-line up and focus a bit more narrowly on global
>>>> IG. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178  It
>>>> should be interesting and instructive to address roughly the same issues in
>>>> the two different venues with two different audiences…
>>>> Best,
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> --Please note new email address--
>>>>
>>>> ***************************************************
>>>> William J. Drake
>>>> International Fellow
>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>>>> www.williamdrake.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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sala
>>>
>>> "Stillness in the midst of the noise".
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Sala
>
>"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Wed May 11 17:17:35 2011
From: Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 23:17:35 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Ohu
In-Reply-To:      <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF81@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.d
     e>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
    <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
    <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
    <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
    <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
    <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
    <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
    <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
    <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
    <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
    <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>
    <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>
    <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>
    <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>
    <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
    <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org>
    <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
    <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
    <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <"8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA
    31B"@marzouki.info>
    <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF81@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <12544.88.64.90.127.1305148655.squirrel@webmail.lrz.de>

Hallo Wolgang,
kommst Du voran? Wenn Du mir die Texte schickst, kümmere ich mich darum,
aus Deiner offiziellen Collaboratory-Adresse, die Emails zu zu schicken
(und natürlich zu verwalten). Ich könnte auch Ende nächster Woche einen
Reminder schicken.
BTW, wollen wir auch Leute wie Daniel Domscheit-Berg einladen? Ich bin mit
ihm bekannt und könnte den Kontakt herstellen, wenn gewünscht.
Viele Grüße,
Lorena
-- 
________________________________________________
Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A.
Wissenschaftliche Assistentin
Lehrstuhl für Politische Theorie (Prof. Dr. Karsten Fischer)
Geschwister-Scholl-Institut
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Oettingenstraße 67
80538 München
Tel.: +49 (0)89 2180 90 20
Fax: +49 (0)89 2180 90 22

Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A.
Research Associate
Chair of Political Theory,
Geschwister-Scholl-Institute
Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich
Oettingennstr. 67
80538 Munich
Germany
Phone: +49 (0)89 2180 90 20
Fax: +49 (0)89 2180 90 22

Am Mi, 11.05.2011, 14:19, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang":
> Ig you go to the G 20 website and click "The French Priorities" there is
> nothing related to the Internet. This is a an interesting gap.
> Intentionally? They did just forget it? Or they do not want to talk about
> the Internet with Brasil, India and China?   The G 20 summit is planned
> for Cannes in November 2011. Another nice "film festivalö" and an
> opportonity for a stresstext how serious MS in IG is taken by governments.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Meryem Marzouki
> Gesendet: Mi 11.05.2011 11:59
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: Re: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
>
>
>
> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
> Meryem
>
> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has
>> started.
>>
>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the
>> statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our
>> preferred group to address Internet policies.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>>
>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because,
>>> as
>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8
>>> will
>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>>> eG8 conclusions.
>>>
>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so
>>> far.
>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under
>>> the
>>> G8 and not the G20.
>>>
>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments
>>> from
>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>>
>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>>> http://www.g20-g8.com <http://www.g20-g8.com/> , and there's an English
>>> version available.
>>>
>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Meryem
>>>
>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>>
>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe I'm missing something....
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr
>>> <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/> >
>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org <http://www.iris.sgdg.org/> >
>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org
>>> <http://www.edri.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
>>
>
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


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

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

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


From Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de  Wed May 11 17:28:24 2011
From: Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 23:28:24 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Ohu
In-Reply-To: <12544.88.64.90.127.1305148655.squirrel@webmail.lrz.de>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
    <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
    <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
    <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
    <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
    <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
    <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
    <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
    <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>
    <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>
    <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>
    <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>
    <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
    <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org>
    <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
    <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
    <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <"8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA
    31B"@marzouki.info>
    <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF81@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
    <12544.88.64.90.127.1305148655.squirrel@webmail.lrz.de>
Message-ID: <12611.88.64.90.127.1305149304.squirrel@webmail.lrz.de>

I'm sorry, I did it again: I sent a message to the list, although it was a
private email. Please excuse, it won't happen anymore.
Regards,
Lorena
-- 
________________________________________________
Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A.
Wissenschaftliche Assistentin
Lehrstuhl für Politische Theorie (Prof. Dr. Karsten Fischer)
Geschwister-Scholl-Institut
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Oettingenstraße 67
80538 München
Tel.: +49 (0)89 2180 90 20
Fax: +49 (0)89 2180 90 22

Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A.
Research Associate
Chair of Political Theory,
Geschwister-Scholl-Institute
Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich
Oettingennstr. 67
80538 Munich
Germany
Phone: +49 (0)89 2180 90 20
Fax: +49 (0)89 2180 90 22

Am Mi, 11.05.2011, 23:17, schrieb Lorena Jaume-Palasi:
> Hallo Wolgang,
> kommst Du voran? Wenn Du mir die Texte schickst, kümmere ich mich darum,
> aus Deiner offiziellen Collaboratory-Adresse, die Emails zu zu schicken
> (und natürlich zu verwalten). Ich könnte auch Ende nächster Woche einen
> Reminder schicken.
> BTW, wollen wir auch Leute wie Daniel Domscheit-Berg einladen? Ich bin mit
> ihm bekannt und könnte den Kontakt herstellen, wenn gewünscht.
> Viele Grüße,
> Lorena
> --
> ________________________________________________
> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A.
> Wissenschaftliche Assistentin
> Lehrstuhl für Politische Theorie (Prof. Dr. Karsten Fischer)
> Geschwister-Scholl-Institut
> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
> Oettingenstraße 67
> 80538 München
> Tel.: +49 (0)89 2180 90 20
> Fax: +49 (0)89 2180 90 22
>
> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A.
> Research Associate
> Chair of Political Theory,
> Geschwister-Scholl-Institute
> Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich
> Oettingennstr. 67
> 80538 Munich
> Germany
> Phone: +49 (0)89 2180 90 20
> Fax: +49 (0)89 2180 90 22
>
> Am Mi, 11.05.2011, 14:19, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang":
>> Ig you go to the G 20 website and click "The French Priorities" there is
>> nothing related to the Internet. This is a an interesting gap.
>> Intentionally? They did just forget it? Or they do not want to talk
>> about
>> the Internet with Brasil, India and China?   The G 20 summit is planned
>> for Cannes in November 2011. Another nice "film festivalö" and an
>> opportonity for a stresstext how serious MS in IG is taken by
>> governments.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Meryem Marzouki
>> Gesendet: Mi 11.05.2011 11:59
>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Betreff: Re: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
>>
>>
>>
>> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
>> Meryem
>>
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has
>>> started.
>>>
>>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the
>>> statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our
>>> preferred group to address Internet policies.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>>>
>>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because,
>>>> as
>>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8
>>>> will
>>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>>>> eG8 conclusions.
>>>>
>>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so
>>>> far.
>>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November
>>>> in
>>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under
>>>> the
>>>> G8 and not the G20.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will
>>>> become
>>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues
>>>> should
>>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments
>>>> from
>>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and
>>>> Izumi
>>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>>>> http://www.g20-g8.com <http://www.g20-g8.com/> , and there's an
>>>> English
>>>> version available.
>>>>
>>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO
>>>> signatures
>>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Meryem
>>>>
>>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly
>>>>> declarations
>>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events
>>>>> in
>>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so,
>>>>> then
>>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe I'm missing something....
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr
>>>> <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/> >
>>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org <http://www.iris.sgdg.org/> >
>>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org
>>>> <http://www.edri.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
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


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

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

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


From avri at acm.org  Wed May 11 17:48:54 2011
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:48:54 -0400
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <0C771AFA-4BA0-447A-A17E-B0514FE47B37@marzouki.info>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-!
  ! ! ! 1475755DA31B@marzouki.info> <BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com> <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com> <A2AEF699-0646-4825-A7A9-EBD256E8FAAE@marzouki.info> <8283BB98-744C-4DAC-A55A-B3118E6B4733@ella.com> <0C771AFA-4BA0-447A-A17E-B0514FE47B37@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <44A58EB0-E0C6-4903-B6BA-F8FE43DDE309@acm.org>


hi,

some more info from ISOC-NY's web site

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=2058

a.

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

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

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


From olgacavalli at gmail.com  Wed May 11 23:19:24 2011
From: olgacavalli at gmail.com (Olga Cavalli)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 20:19:24 -0700
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikca=huY2--Q=XRNRZuQAoiSiaZWQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Bill, I will not be in Geneva but will try to attend remotely.
Best
Olga

2011/5/11 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>

> Hello,
>
> While I gather the level of meatspace participation by IGF types will be
> rather low next week in Geneva, all those who are making the trip would be
> most welcome to attend a workshop I've organized in the WSIS Forum.  There
> will be remote participation available as well through the forum site
> http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have register
> for this), a twitter feed, and so on.
>
> The workshop will be held in the Governing Body Room (seems appropriate)
> of The International Labor Organization from 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May 2011.
>  The idea is to contribute to the inchoate debate on what kinds of
> institutional structures would be most appropriate in tackling key global
> governance issues going forward.  For example, rather than just saying on
> political/normative grounds that we prefer multistakeholderism or
> intergovernmentalism, it would be useful to draw on the relevant analytical
> literatures and practical experiences to arrive at some principled bases for
> selecting institutional arrangements that are optimized to particular
> functional problems.  This would seem to be of particular relevance at a
> time when parties are proposing new or revised global governance
> arrangements on various fronts, e.g. enhanced cooperation, the IANA
> contract, the COE initiative on crossborder Internet harm, the governance of
> the Internet of Things, the debate on revising the International Telecom
> Regulations to cover the Internet, the development agenda discussion,
> current intellectual property and digital trade initiatives, even the DC on
> Rights and Principles initiative for that matter.  What models are best
> suited to which of these issue-sets?
>
>
> Description follows:
>
> *Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance*
>
> The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a
> significant increase in the number and variety of governance
> arrangements.  Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by
> plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by
> unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance,
> multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of independent
> practices.  These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the
> collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes
> they possess.
>
> How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative
> merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance
> challenges?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms of
> cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency,
> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness,
> and public interest orientation?  Are there any generalizable lessons that
> they could learn from one another?  How well do today’s mechanisms cohere
> into an strong and effective global governance architecture?  This
> workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and related
> questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT
> global governance.
>
> *Speakers*
>
> Dr. William J. Drake  [organizer & moderator]
> International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division
> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>
> Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen
> Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications
> South Africa
>
> Mr. Alvaro Galvani
> Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
> Government of Brazil
>
> Mr. Markus Kummer
> Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society
> Switzerland
>
> Prof. Michael Latzer
> Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division
> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>
> Ms. Nermine El Saadany
> Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications
> and Information Technology
> Government of Egypt
>
> Mr. Thomas Schneider
> Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of
> Communications
> Government of Switzerland
>
>
> We are hoping for a lively interactive discussion with no serial talking
> head presentations of pre-prepared speeches and ample time for interventions
> from the floor and remote.  So if this is of interest, please do join us.
>
> I might add that this workshop is linked to a similarly constructed one
> I've proposed for Nairobi, although that one would have a somewhat different
> panel-line up and focus a bit more narrowly on global IG.
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178  It
> should be interesting and instructive to address roughly the same issues in
> the two different venues with two different audiences…
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> --Please note new email address--
>
> ***************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch
> www.williamdrake.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/20110511/2d15e20f/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 odamyte at gmail.com  Wed May 11 23:21:20 2011
From: odamyte at gmail.com (Jacob B. Odame)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 03:21:20 +0000
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi

You can register for the remote participation at the link
http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html.

Thanks,
Jacob

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is excellent. Will there be remote participation?
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:51 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > While I gather the level of meatspace participation by IGF types will be
> > rather low next week in Geneva, all those who are making the trip would
> be
> > most welcome to attend a workshop I've organized in the WSIS Forum.
>  There
> > will be remote participation available as well through the forum
> > site http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have
> > register for this), a twitter feed, and so on.
> > The workshop will be held in the Governing Body Room (seems appropriate)
> > of The International Labor Organization from 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May
> 2011.
> >  The idea is to contribute to the inchoate debate on what kinds of
> > institutional structures would be most appropriate in tackling key global
> > governance issues going forward.  For example, rather than just saying on
> > political/normative grounds that we prefer multistakeholderism or
> > intergovernmentalism, it would be useful to draw on the relevant
> analytical
> > literatures and practical experiences to arrive at some principled bases
> for
> > selecting institutional arrangements that are optimized to particular
> > functional problems.  This would seem to be of particular relevance at a
> > time when parties are proposing new or revised global governance
> > arrangements on various fronts, e.g. enhanced cooperation, the IANA
> > contract, the COE initiative on crossborder Internet harm, the governance
> of
> > the Internet of Things, the debate on revising the International Telecom
> > Regulations to cover the Internet, the development agenda discussion,
> > current intellectual property and digital trade initiatives, even the DC
> on
> > Rights and Principles initiative for that matter.  What models are best
> > suited to which of these issue-sets?
> >
> > Description follows:
> > Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance
> >
> > The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a
> > significant increase in the number and variety of governance
> > arrangements.  Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by
> > plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by
> > unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance,
> > multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of
> independent
> > practices.  These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the
> > collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes
> > they possess.
> >
> > How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative
> > merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance
> > challenges?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms
> of
> > cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency,
> > transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness,
> > and public interest orientation?  Are there any generalizable lessons
> that
> > they could learn from one another?  How well do today’s mechanisms cohere
> > into an strong and effective global governance architecture?  This
> > workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and
> related
> > questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT
> > global governance.
> >
> > Speakers
> >
> > Dr. William J. Drake  [organizer & moderator]
> > International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division
> > Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
> > University of Zurich, Switzerland
> >
> > Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen
> > Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications
> > South Africa
> >
> > Mr. Alvaro Galvani
> > Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
> > Government of Brazil
> >
> > Mr. Markus Kummer
> > Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society
> > Switzerland
> >
> > Prof. Michael Latzer
> > Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division
> > Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
> > University of Zurich, Switzerland
> >
> > Ms. Nermine El Saadany
> > Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications
> and
> > Information Technology
> > Government of Egypt
> >
> > Mr. Thomas Schneider
> > Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of
> > Communications
> > Government of Switzerland
> >
> > We are hoping for a lively interactive discussion with no serial talking
> > head presentations of pre-prepared speeches and ample time for
> interventions
> > from the floor and remote.  So if this is of interest, please do join us.
> > I might add that this workshop is linked to a similarly constructed one
> I've
> > proposed for Nairobi, although that one would have a somewhat different
> > panel-line up and focus a bit more narrowly on global
> > IG.
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178
>   It
> > should be interesting and instructive to address roughly the same issues
> in
> > the two different venues with two different audiences…
> > Best,
> > Bill
> >
> > --Please note new email address--
> >
> > ***************************************************
> > William J. Drake
> > International Fellow
> > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> > University of Zurich, Switzerland
> > william.drake at uzh.ch
> > www.williamdrake.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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sala
>
> "Stillness in the midst of the noise".
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Jacob B.Odame
http://www.linkedin.com/in/peejake
http://twitter.com/peejake
Blog: http://ict4dfootprint.wordpress.com/
Skype: peejake
Ph(Ghana): +233 24 2505043
Phone(US):+1-740-591-6681
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/59dc3120/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  Wed May 11 23:25:33 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:25:33 +0900
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikca=huY2--Q=XRNRZuQAoiSiaZWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTikca=huY2--Q=XRNRZuQAoiSiaZWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimSXgWLwD+SfRWAtrmnzA197=KOOw@mail.gmail.com>

I'll be in Geneva (or France... no hotels in Geneva next week, worst
I've seen it for hotel availability, ridiculous) and will try to be
there (9 am meeting, terrible...)

OK... not being serious.  Serious:

Bill wrote:

> There
> will be remote participation available as well through the forum
> site http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have
> register for this), a twitter feed, and so on.

Adam




On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Bill, I will not be in Geneva but will try to attend remotely.
> Best
> Olga
>
> 2011/5/11 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>>
>> Hello,
>> While I gather the level of meatspace participation by IGF types will be
>> rather low next week in Geneva, all those who are making the trip would be
>> most welcome to attend a workshop I've organized in the WSIS Forum.  There
>> will be remote participation available as well through the forum
>> site http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have
>> register for this), a twitter feed, and so on.
>> The workshop will be held in the Governing Body Room (seems appropriate)
>> of The International Labor Organization from 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May 2011.
>>  The idea is to contribute to the inchoate debate on what kinds of
>> institutional structures would be most appropriate in tackling key global
>> governance issues going forward.  For example, rather than just saying on
>> political/normative grounds that we prefer multistakeholderism or
>> intergovernmentalism, it would be useful to draw on the relevant analytical
>> literatures and practical experiences to arrive at some principled bases for
>> selecting institutional arrangements that are optimized to particular
>> functional problems.  This would seem to be of particular relevance at a
>> time when parties are proposing new or revised global governance
>> arrangements on various fronts, e.g. enhanced cooperation, the IANA
>> contract, the COE initiative on crossborder Internet harm, the governance of
>> the Internet of Things, the debate on revising the International Telecom
>> Regulations to cover the Internet, the development agenda discussion,
>> current intellectual property and digital trade initiatives, even the DC on
>> Rights and Principles initiative for that matter.  What models are best
>> suited to which of these issue-sets?
>>
>> Description follows:
>> Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance
>>
>> The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a
>> significant increase in the number and variety of governance
>> arrangements.  Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by
>> plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by
>> unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance,
>> multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of independent
>> practices.  These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the
>> collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes
>> they possess.
>>
>> How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative
>> merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance
>> challenges?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms of
>> cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency,
>> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness,
>> and public interest orientation?  Are there any generalizable lessons that
>> they could learn from one another?  How well do today’s mechanisms cohere
>> into an strong and effective global governance architecture?  This
>> workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and related
>> questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT
>> global governance.
>>
>> Speakers
>>
>> Dr. William J. Drake  [organizer & moderator]
>> International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division
>> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>
>> Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications
>> South Africa
>>
>> Mr. Alvaro Galvani
>> Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
>> Government of Brazil
>>
>> Mr. Markus Kummer
>> Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society
>> Switzerland
>>
>> Prof. Michael Latzer
>> Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division
>> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>
>> Ms. Nermine El Saadany
>> Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications
>> and Information Technology
>> Government of Egypt
>>
>> Mr. Thomas Schneider
>> Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of
>> Communications
>> Government of Switzerland
>>
>> We are hoping for a lively interactive discussion with no serial talking
>> head presentations of pre-prepared speeches and ample time for interventions
>> from the floor and remote.  So if this is of interest, please do join us.
>> I might add that this workshop is linked to a similarly constructed one
>> I've proposed for Nairobi, although that one would have a somewhat different
>> panel-line up and focus a bit more narrowly on global
>> IG. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178  It
>> should be interesting and instructive to address roughly the same issues in
>> the two different venues with two different audiences…
>> Best,
>> Bill
>>
>> --Please note new email address--
>>
>> ***************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow
>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>> www.williamdrake.org
>> ****************************************************
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed May 11 23:53:17 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:23:17 +0530
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCAC239.5050606@wzb.eu>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA31B@marzouki.info> <4DCAC239.5050606@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4DCB59AD.3090104@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 11 May 2011 10:37 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Sorry, I was offline most of the day. Marilia said it all in her reply:
>
> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, 
> I believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we 
> are advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal 
> footing and genuinely multistakeholder.

I agree it doesnt.

UN based systems especially with the innovations that WSIS has made 
possible (but which have not been allowed to be used appropriately by 
strong vested interests) is the most appropriate way to go forward.  But 
for that we in the civil society should help develop the whole set of 
mandated processes in a manner that they can  fulfil the role of 
democratic and multistakeholder global Internet policy devleopment. It 
is civil society's special responsibility to step up and provide viable 
models that satisfy the urgent requirements for global Internet policy 
regime sin many areas. Unfortunately, we have been as active in this 
respect as we owe to be. Maybe we can now... Incidentally, Marcilia's 
organisation and mine are proposing a workshop in Nairobi on 
institutional gaps in the global Internet policy structure. parminder
>
> While G20 would be marginally more representative it is not 
> categorically different from the G8. I wouldn't want them either to 
> develop Internet policies on our behalf without consulting/integrating 
> us.
>
> jeanette
>
> On 11.05.2011 11:59, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
>> Meryem
>>
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has 
>>> started.
>>>
>>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the 
>>> statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our 
>>> preferred group to address Internet policies.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>>>
>>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely 
>>>> because, as
>>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 
>>>> will
>>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>>>> eG8 conclusions.
>>>>
>>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so 
>>>> far.
>>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 
>>>> November in
>>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held 
>>>> under the
>>>> G8 and not the G20.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will 
>>>> become
>>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues 
>>>> should
>>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments 
>>>> from
>>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and 
>>>> Izumi
>>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>>>> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>>>>
>>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO 
>>>> signatures
>>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Meryem
>>>>
>>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. 
>>>>>> So I
>>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly 
>>>>> declarations
>>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may 
>>>>>
>>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international 
>>>>> events in
>>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, 
>>>>> then
>>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info<mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr<http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org<http://www.edri.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
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.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
>
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/a799e9be/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/a799e9be/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 12 01:29:25 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:29:25 +0800
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian proposal
 towards an IGF 2.0"
Message-ID: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>

The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
"Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
that the three be merged.

The ICC/BASIS one is "a roundtable workshop format that includes the
full range of stakeholders to discuss a broad range of ideas and provide
an opportunity to exchange perspectives on proposed improvements". 
Marilia and I both strongly felt that merging with such a workshop would
result in a loss of focus and weaker (or more likely no) outcomes.

The ISOC workshop actually does sound more interesting (to me), but it
is very much more process-oriented rather than addressing specific
proposals for improvement.  I think that the ISOC one, like ours, would
be better stand-alone.

Marilia and I, as co-organisers of the workshop for the IGC, were
invited to discuss the proposed merger with the others yesterday in a
teleconference.  We expressed our views strongly, and I hope
effectively.  But we came away promising to consult with this group
about whether a merger could be considered under the following conditions:

1. Workshop would be expanded to double-length.
2. IGC (naturally, I guess) will have an equal say in all organisational
decisions.

The three workshop proposals are:

http://mini.me.my/10 (IGC workshop)
http://mini.me.my/11 (ISOC workshop)
http://mini.me.my/12 (ICC/BASIS workshop)

So please let us know your thoughts before the end of the week, in order
that Marilia (who will be in Geneva) can present them to the others
ahead of the pseudo-MAG meeting.

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

*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_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/68f42439/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/68f42439/attachment.bin>

From avri at ella.com  Thu May 12 01:42:59 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 01:42:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com>

Thanks.

Looks great

a.

On 11 May 2011, at 23:21, Jacob B. Odame wrote:

> Hi 
> 
> You can register for the remote participation at the link  http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Jacob

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

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu May 12 01:45:25 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 08:45:25 +0300
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimKMcv5PEJWbfdzvVHCLUJSVwGVcA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting that
> the three be merged.

I would be happy with that outcome.

>
> The ICC/BASIS one is "a roundtable workshop format that includes the full
> range of stakeholders to discuss a broad range of ideas and provide an
> opportunity to exchange perspectives on proposed improvements".  Marilia and
> I both strongly felt that merging with such a workshop would result in a
> loss of focus and weaker (or more likely no) outcomes.
>
> The ISOC workshop actually does sound more interesting (to me), but it is
> very much more process-oriented rather than addressing specific proposals
> for improvement.  I think that the ISOC one, like ours, would be better
> stand-alone.
>
> Marilia and I, as co-organisers of the workshop for the IGC, were invited to
> discuss the proposed merger with the others yesterday in a teleconference.
> We expressed our views strongly, and I hope effectively.  But we came away
> promising to consult with this group about whether a merger could be
> considered under the following conditions:
>
> 1. Workshop would be expanded to double-length.
> 2. IGC (naturally, I guess) will have an equal say in all organisational
> decisions.
>
> The three workshop proposals are:
>
> http://mini.me.my/10 (IGC workshop)

How is this one about "Managing Critical Internet Resources"?  Isn't
it Taking Stock anbd Way forward like the others?


> http://mini.me.my/11 (ISOC workshop)
> http://mini.me.my/12 (ICC/BASIS workshop)
>
> So please let us know your thoughts before the end of the week, in order
> that Marilia (who will be in Geneva) can present them to the others ahead of
> the pseudo-MAG meeting.

done!


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu May 12 02:21:15 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:21:15 +0800
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimKMcv5PEJWbfdzvVHCLUJSVwGVcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <BANLkTimKMcv5PEJWbfdzvVHCLUJSVwGVcA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DCB7C5B.3050503@ciroap.org>

On 12/05/11 13:45, McTim wrote:
> How is this one about "Managing Critical Internet Resources"? Isn't
> it Taking Stock anbd Way forward like the others?

Yes, that was just a mistake.  Originally there was no "Taking Stock"
option, I didn't notice they'd added it.  I have asked the Secretariat
to change the category, but as usual have received no reply or action.

-- 

*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_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/af3f6e0a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/af3f6e0a/attachment.bin>

From divina.meigs at orange.fr  Thu May 12 02:56:32 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 08:56:32 +0200
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
Message-ID: <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>


Hello

To me it seems we have to take a step at a time. The E-G8 starts soon, it
probably will pave the way for an E-G20... If we let the precedent happen
without protest, it will be harder to argue later for entry in E-G20.

divina

Le 11/05/11 14:36, « Avri Doria » <avri at ella.com> a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> I am not sure I understand the suggestion.  Is that that we suggest that they
> not have a eG8 but have an 'eG20' instead?
> 
> As far as I understand the eG8 is already planned and the some
> people/organizations already have their invitations.  We want invitations for
> civil society becasue we want a seat at any table where these issues are being
> discussed on a global basis.
> 
> The issue of G8 versus G20 would be a different one and one that at least for
> the moment is a bit late in relations to this event.
> 
> Of course if there is a 'eG20', we should have argue for a seat at that table.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 11 May 2011, at 05:24, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> 
>> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I
>> believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are
>> advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and
>> genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded
>> from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a
>> way of political pressure.
>> 
>> Marília
>> 
>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info>
>> wrote:
>> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
>> Meryem
>> 
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has started.
>>> 
>>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the statement
>>> if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our preferred group to
>>> address Internet policies.
>>> 
>>> jeanette
>>> 
>>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>>> 
>>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
>>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
>>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>>>> eG8 conclusions.
>>>> 
>>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
>>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
>>>> G8 and not the G20.
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
>>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>>> 
>>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>>>> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>>>> 
>>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Meryem
>>>> 
>>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-
>>>>> may
>>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or maybe I'm missing somethingŠ.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.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
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.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
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 12 03:25:55 2011
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:25:55 +0200
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian proposal
 towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinAE3xAmZugDs+M1Pss8vSZCLVYBg@mail.gmail.com>

Warning. ICC/BASIS and ISOC just want to snow the serious issues. A Sesame
street kind of nice talk. Don't merge.
- - -

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>  The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting that
> the three be merged.
>
> The ICC/BASIS one is "a roundtable workshop format that includes the full
> range of stakeholders to discuss a broad range of ideas and provide an
> opportunity to exchange perspectives on proposed improvements".  Marilia and
> I both strongly felt that merging with such a workshop would result in a
> loss of focus and weaker (or more likely no) outcomes.
>
> The ISOC workshop actually does sound more interesting (to me), but it is
> very much more process-oriented rather than addressing specific proposals
> for improvement.  I think that the ISOC one, like ours, would be better
> stand-alone.
>
> Marilia and I, as co-organisers of the workshop for the IGC, were invited
> to discuss the proposed merger with the others yesterday in a
> teleconference.  We expressed our views strongly, and I hope effectively.
> But we came away promising to consult with this group about whether a merger
> could be considered under the following conditions:
>
> 1. Workshop would be expanded to double-length.
> 2. IGC (naturally, I guess) will have an equal say in all organisational
> decisions.
>
> The three workshop proposals are:
>
> http://mini.me.my/10 (IGC workshop)
> http://mini.me.my/11 (ISOC workshop)
> http://mini.me.my/12 (ICC/BASIS workshop)
>
> So please let us know your thoughts before the end of the week, in order
> that Marilia (who will be in Geneva) can present them to the others ahead of
> the pseudo-MAG meeting.
>
> 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
>
> *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*
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/a586e083/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  Thu May 12 04:53:58 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 10:53:58 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> (message from Jeremy Malcolm on
	Thu, 12 May 2011 13:29:25 +0800)
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
> that the three be merged.

Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?

How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
desires of Marilia and yourself?

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

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

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


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu May 12 04:56:29 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:56:29 +0800
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>

On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
>> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
>> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
>> that the three be merged.
> Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>
> How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
> desires of Marilia and yourself?

A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
"all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
difficult to speculate.

-- 

*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_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/7eb4ab37/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/7eb4ab37/attachment.bin>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Thu May 12 05:56:22 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:56:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com> <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com>
Message-ID: <B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch>

Hi

Glad there's some interest in remote participation in our workshop.  I just spoke with the ITU & IGF secretariats to double check about remote participation.  Re: the former, as is explained on the registration page, http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Register/RemoteParticipationRegistration.aspx  the options are:

*Webcast, registration not required

*Adobe Connect Conference Rooms, registration required

*Twitter is #WSIS. If you wanted tweets to appear in the forum's site you'd have to register.


Re: the latter, while there may also be links from the WF site, it seems that IGF will offer RM in the usual fashion off its site.

The list of registered participants is still not for public consumption but there are now over 1,000 attendees, no way to know how many of these are for the iGF sessions.

Best,

Bill



On May 12, 2011, at 7:42 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Thanks.
> 
> Looks great
> 
> a.
> 
> On 11 May 2011, at 23:21, Jacob B. Odame wrote:
> 
>> Hi 
>> 
>> You can register for the remote participation at the link  http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html. 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Jacob
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/14989928/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  Thu May 12 06:32:11 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:32:11 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> (message from Jeremy Malcolm on
	Thu, 12 May 2011 16:56:29 +0800)
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
> 
> >> that the three be merged.
> > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
> >
> > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
> > desires of Marilia and yourself?
> 
> A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
> have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
> teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
> "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
> the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
> more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
> difficult to speculate.

Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
debate for those who wish to participate in that.)

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

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

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu May 12 06:27:05 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:27:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com>
	<B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=ELtAWFGd-00Z0M4LhJYHyBFNAqA@mail.gmail.com>

I have this funny feeling that many of these participants of the WSIS
Forum 2011 might want to experience the IGF consultations?

I will be there!

Best

Fouad

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:56 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> Hi
> Glad there's some interest in remote participation in our workshop.  I just
> spoke with the ITU & IGF secretariats to double check about remote
> participation.  Re: the former, as is explained on the registration
> page, http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Register/RemoteParticipationRegistration.aspx  the
> options are:
> *Webcast, registration not required
> *Adobe Connect Conference Rooms, registration required
> *Twitter is #WSIS. If you wanted tweets to appear in the forum's site you'd
> have to register.
>
> Re: the latter, while there may also be links from the WF site, it seems
> that IGF will offer RM in the usual fashion off its site.
> The list of registered participants is still not for public consumption but
> there are now over 1,000 attendees, no way to know how many of these are for
> the iGF sessions.
> Best,
> Bill
>
>
> On May 12, 2011, at 7:42 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Thanks.
>
> Looks great
>
> a.
>
> On 11 May 2011, at 23:21, Jacob B. Odame wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> You can register for the remote participation at the link
>  http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jacob
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 12 06:35:37 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 22:35:37 +1200
Subject: [governance] New Research on likely increases in 4G mobile capacity
 relative to 3G
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=3r3gQ+6JB9d5kwimNoRkB4JJQUg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Ofcom has today published new research on the likely increases in 4G
mobile capacity relative to 3G. The research indicates that early 4G
mobile networks with standard configurations are likely be 3.3 times
more spectrally efficient than today’s standard 3G networks. It is
anticipated that this efficiency will increase to approximately 5.5
times by 2020.

The research is available here:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/technology-research/2011/4G-Capacity-Gains/

Kind Regards,



-- 
Sala

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

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

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


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu May 12 07:02:08 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 23:02:08 +1200
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=ELtAWFGd-00Z0M4LhJYHyBFNAqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com>
	<B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTi=ELtAWFGd-00Z0M4LhJYHyBFNAqA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikG-3JRVXa+7ty1BTPRoPRmCC=WJw@mail.gmail.com>

I am looking forward to participating remotely.

Sala

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have this funny feeling that many of these participants of the WSIS
> Forum 2011 might want to experience the IGF consultations?
>
> I will be there!
>
> Best
>
> Fouad
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:56 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>> Hi
>> Glad there's some interest in remote participation in our workshop.  I just
>> spoke with the ITU & IGF secretariats to double check about remote
>> participation.  Re: the former, as is explained on the registration
>> page, http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Register/RemoteParticipationRegistration.aspx  the
>> options are:
>> *Webcast, registration not required
>> *Adobe Connect Conference Rooms, registration required
>> *Twitter is #WSIS. If you wanted tweets to appear in the forum's site you'd
>> have to register.
>>
>> Re: the latter, while there may also be links from the WF site, it seems
>> that IGF will offer RM in the usual fashion off its site.
>> The list of registered participants is still not for public consumption but
>> there are now over 1,000 attendees, no way to know how many of these are for
>> the iGF sessions.
>> Best,
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> On May 12, 2011, at 7:42 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Looks great
>>
>> a.
>>
>> On 11 May 2011, at 23:21, Jacob B. Odame wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> You can register for the remote participation at the link
>>  http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jacob
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
Sala

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

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

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


From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu May 12 07:45:28 2011
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 07:45:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikG-3JRVXa+7ty1BTPRoPRmCC=WJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com> <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com>
 <B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch> <BANLkTi=ELtAWFGd-00Z0M4LhJYHyBFNAqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTikG-3JRVXa+7ty1BTPRoPRmCC=WJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTim0bzLPyPeaR2G0S-q6J51DArXdVg@mail.gmail.com>

In case you are counting I have registered for remote participation too.
Deirdre
PS That's at least 2 remote small islands on opposite sides of the world :-)

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/8cd04c1d/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  Thu May 12 08:55:14 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 08:55:14 -0400
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>,<C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

I agree with Divina.

An eG20 may not be scheduled for November already; but so what.

In general, re G8 vs G20 vs UN; obviously UN is most inclusive.  

But G20 does include ~66% global population, so in general it is far better for IGC to focus some energy on than G8. 

But that is a next step.

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Divina MEIGS [divina.meigs at orange.fr]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 2:56 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

Hello

To me it seems we have to take a step at a time. The E-G8 starts soon, it
probably will pave the way for an E-G20... If we let the precedent happen
without protest, it will be harder to argue later for entry in E-G20.

divina

Le 11/05/11 14:36, « Avri Doria » <avri at ella.com> a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> I am not sure I understand the suggestion.  Is that that we suggest that they
> not have a eG8 but have an 'eG20' instead?
>
> As far as I understand the eG8 is already planned and the some
> people/organizations already have their invitations.  We want invitations for
> civil society becasue we want a seat at any table where these issues are being
> discussed on a global basis.
>
> The issue of G8 versus G20 would be a different one and one that at least for
> the moment is a bit late in relations to this event.
>
> Of course if there is a 'eG20', we should have argue for a seat at that table.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 11 May 2011, at 05:24, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
>> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I
>> believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are
>> advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and
>> genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded
>> from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a
>> way of political pressure.
>>
>> Marília
>>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info>
>> wrote:
>> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
>> Meryem
>>
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has started.
>>>
>>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the statement
>>> if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our preferred group to
>>> address Internet policies.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>>>
>>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
>>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
>>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>>>> eG8 conclusions.
>>>>
>>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
>>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
>>>> G8 and not the G20.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
>>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>>>> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>>>>
>>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Meryem
>>>>
>>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-
>>>>> may
>>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe I'm missing somethingŠ.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.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
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.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
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


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

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

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

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 12 08:59:54 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>

Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our
main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
proposal.



Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a
revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without
reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex:
CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential
shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business sector
and the technical community, in my view.



A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas,
reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet
for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.



The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
workshop, with half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview
of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the
proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be dedicated to
focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don’t know if that
would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this would be
in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by
political considerations.



In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups
will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF
workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
improvement?



Best,

Marília

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> > >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> > >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> > >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
> >
> > >> that the three be merged.
> > > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
> > >
> > > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
> > > desires of Marilia and yourself?
> >
> > A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
> > have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
> > teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
> > "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
> > the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
> > more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
> > difficult to speculate.
>
> Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
> debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
> support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
> you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
> the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
> approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
> at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
> other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
> non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
> with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
> debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
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/20110512/bcd7ce78/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  Thu May 12 09:00:22 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:00:22 +0300
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
 <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
> I agree with Divina.
>
> An eG20 may not be scheduled for November already; but so what.
>
> In general, re G8 vs G20 vs UN; obviously UN is most inclusive.
>
> But G20 does include ~66% global population, so in general it is far better for IGC to focus some energy on than G8.
>
> But that is a next step.


whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE
activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for
potential IG bodies???

Perhaps the coordinators could take this up?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu May 12 09:14:22 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:14:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>,<BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BE3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

My suggestion:

1) We are happy to cooperate (really ; ) in merger discussions, assuming a willingness of all parties to propose making this discussion a 2 part extended workshop session/key feature of upcoming IGF meeting

2) Merged title 'Reflection on the Indian Proposal towards an Improved IGF 2.0'

3) Part I: General recriminations/improving IGF discussion, ICC and ISOC can lead, IGC participates 
     Part II: The Indian Proposal Towards an IGF 2.0, IGC leads, ICC and ISOC participate

4) If ok by ICC and ISOC, great, if not well we tried and demonstrated our - flexibility.

Lee


________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 8:59 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow
Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0"

Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our proposal.

Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex: CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business sector and the technical community, in my view.

A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas, reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.

The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer workshop, with half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be dedicated to focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don’t know if that would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this would be in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by political considerations.

In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF improvement?

Best,
Marília

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
> On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
> >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
>
> >> that the three be merged.
> > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
> >
> > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
> > desires of Marilia and yourself?
>
> A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
> have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
> teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
> "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
> the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
> more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
> difficult to speculate.

Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
debate for those who wish to participate in that.)

Greetings,
Norbert
____________________________________________________________
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




--
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 avri at ella.com  Thu May 12 09:24:21 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:24:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A441065D-647A-437C-BC84-572D8C7AB43C@ella.com>

Hi,

I think Louis  explained the motivation for the merger quite well.


On 12 May 2011, at 03:25, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:

>  ICC/BASIS and ISOC just want to snow the serious issues. A Sesame street kind of nice talk. Don't merge.


Re;  On 12 May 2011, at 08:59, Marilia Maciel wrote:

> In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF improvement?

>From the vantage point of someone  who has watched the process for many years, I think this is an important caution.  The other protagonists, will be on chat together and will be working to reinforce each others comments, thus you will face a well spoken wall of opposition.  The civil society reps are often more individualistic and are not as well coordinated as supporting each others positions in rapid succession.

In every break, the private sector and the internet community caucus and plan their strategies for the next session.  Often the civil society participants are more involved in being upset at each other for one reason or another. 

Or at least that is how it looked from my vantage point.

My recommendation, coordinate and stick to your  positions.   Consider that is is better to have you workshop kicked out and protest than it is to have it turned in regurgitated pabulum.

a.


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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Thu May 12 09:29:36 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:29:36 -0400
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com> <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B14F66EA-B604-431C-A71A-7BEEE6BDA408@ella.com>


On 12 May 2011, at 09:00, McTim wrote:

> 
> whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE
> activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for
> potential IG bodies???


The so called actual internet governance activities are also political affairs and also largely controlled by business interests.   And tell me, where is it written that these activities should have a monopoly, especially if that monopoly is rigged.

Civil society needs to participate in any and all activities and needs to stand up to the business and government interests in all fora..  Are you suggesting that civil society leave certain venues only to business interests?

I think civil society must participate in all of it and not limit itself to a few venues.

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

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

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


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu May 12 09:39:40 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 22:39:40 +0900
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
  proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <A441065D-647A-437C-BC84-572D8C7AB43C@ella.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
 <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
 <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <A441065D-647A-437C-BC84-572D8C7AB43C@ella.com>
Message-ID: <p06240823c9f191eef102@[192.168.1.160]>

Think there are more workshop proposals this year 
than ever, and the open forums, coalitions etc 
not in yet.  And (Avri may remember better) think 
the number of workshop rooms may be limited and 
the MAG seems to be trying to have less not more 
on the agenda.

A long winded way of saying, we may have to merge 
more then ever this year.  If this is a key theme 
for the caucus, and I think it is, then be ready 
to merge everything else: protect this one and 
give up independence on others.  Perhaps our MAG 
members could do something?

Adam



>Hi,
>
>I think Louis  explained the motivation for the merger quite well.
>
>
>On 12 May 2011, at 03:25, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>
>>   ICC/BASIS and ISOC just want to snow the 
>>serious issues. A Sesame street kind of nice 
>>talk. Don't merge.
>
>
>Re;  On 12 May 2011, at 08:59, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
>>  In any case, we should just be aware that if 
>>we do not merge, other groups will probably try 
>>to impinge us with the political burden of 
>>non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. 
>>There are always several IGF workshops on NN, 
>>youth, etc. So why there can¹t be 2 or 3 
>>workshops on IGF improvement?
>
>>From the vantage point of someone  who has 
>>watched the process for many years, I think 
>>this is an important caution.  The other 
>>protagonists, will be on chat together and will 
>>be working to reinforce each others comments, 
>>thus you will face a well spoken wall of 
>>opposition.  The civil society reps are often 
>>more individualistic and are not as well 
>>coordinated as supporting each others positions 
>>in rapid succession.
>
>In every break, the private sector and the 
>internet community caucus and plan their 
>strategies for the next session.  Often the 
>civil society participants are more involved in 
>being upset at each other for one reason or 
>another.
>
>Or at least that is how it looked from my vantage point.
>
>My recommendation, coordinate and stick to your 
>positions.   Consider that is is better to have 
>you workshop kicked out and protest than it is 
>to have it turned in regurgitated pabulum.
>
>a.
>
>
>a.____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu May 12 09:46:56 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 10:46:56 -0300
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <p06240823c9f191eef102@192.168.1.160>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<A441065D-647A-437C-BC84-572D8C7AB43C@ella.com>
	<p06240823c9f191eef102@192.168.1.160>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikmrwW_QJPciZ5nkr_0v4OT8xSsfg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Perhaps our MAG members could do something?
>
> It would be great to have an update about discussions in the MAG. I have
heard from MAG members about a month ago that the Secretariat would like to
discuss proposals in MAG mailing list first, in order to arrive at the open
consultations with a draft list of selected proposals and suggestions to
merge.

Did this discussion take place? If so, were the proposals under "taking
stocks" debated?

Marília



> Adam
>
>
>
>
>  Hi,
>>
>> I think Louis  explained the motivation for the merger quite well.
>>
>>
>> On 12 May 2011, at 03:25, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>>
>>   ICC/BASIS and ISOC just want to snow the serious issues. A Sesame street
>>> kind of nice talk. Don't merge.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Re;  On 12 May 2011, at 08:59, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>
>>   In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other
>>> groups will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
>>> non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF
>>> workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can¹t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
>>> improvement?
>>>
>>
>>  From the vantage point of someone  who has watched the process for many
>>> years, I think this is an important caution.  The other protagonists, will
>>> be on chat together and will be working to reinforce each others comments,
>>> thus you will face a well spoken wall of opposition.  The civil society reps
>>> are often more individualistic and are not as well coordinated as supporting
>>> each others positions in rapid succession.
>>>
>>
>> In every break, the private sector and the internet community caucus and
>> plan their strategies for the next session.  Often the civil society
>> participants are more involved in being upset at each other for one reason
>> or another.
>>
>> Or at least that is how it looked from my vantage point.
>>
>> My recommendation, coordinate and stick to your positions.   Consider that
>> is is better to have you workshop kicked out and protest than it is to have
>> it turned in regurgitated pabulum.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>> a.____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
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/20110512/5d78da81/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  Thu May 12 09:48:17 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:48:17 +0200
Subject: AW: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
 <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF92@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Lee:
In general, re G8 vs G20 vs UN; obviously UN is most inclusive. But G20 does include ~66% global population, so in general it is far better for IGC to focus some energy on than G8.

Wolfgang:
I am not so sure, Lee. The G 20 includes the three countries who are proposing a new intergovernmental platform for Internet Governance (to close a gap in the existing Internet Governance ecosystem, as they argue). This will be negotiated in the he 2nd Committee of the UN General Assembly in October 2011. With other words, there is an option that Brazil, India and South Africa bring their IBSA-idea also to the forhtcoming G 20 summit in November, not waiting, until the French president takes the Internet to his G 20 priority list. And there is China and Russia. With other words, the chances for civil society to get heard are probably better in the G 8 environmentr than in the G 20. 
 
Nevertheless in both G8 and G20 civil society has something unique to offer in substance to the "discussion platform" (or the forthcoming "negotiation table"). Just to call for a seat in the front row makes not so much sense. In WSIS, when CS was asked what the added value could be, CS brings to the table, we argued 
a. expertise and specific (technical) knowledge
b. linkage to the real problems of the real people on the ground
c. networks for capacity building at the grass root level
d. power to mobilize masses of Internet users   

The question we have to answer today is, inter alia:
a. What we can do to enhance cybersecurity for individual end users? 
b. How can we enhance the knowledge of people whi to use the Internet in the right way? 
c. How we can continue with efforts to bridge the digital divde on the ground?
e. How can we safe human rights like freedom of expression and privacy of individual users against undue political or commercial interests by governments and corporations.
 
BTW, when we had the ATLAS (ICANNs At-Large Summit) in Mexico, we called this as the "first" world summit of Internet users (a little bit overstretched, but not so wrong). This was in March 2009. More or less there was an agreement to have a 2nd Internet User Summit (ATLAS II) in the near future. If we think about 2012 or 2013 we have to start the preparations rather soon. 
 
Wolfgang   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu May 12 09:51:08 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:51:08 +0300
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <B14F66EA-B604-431C-A71A-7BEEE6BDA408@ella.com>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
 <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com> <B14F66EA-B604-431C-A71A-7BEEE6BDA408@ella.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinz+_156VYJbPRgEhL7zOOzUfxqMw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>
> On 12 May 2011, at 09:00, McTim wrote:
>
>>
>> whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE
>> activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for
>> potential IG bodies???
>
>
> The so called actual internet governance activities are also political affairs and also largely controlled by business interests.   And tell me, where is it written that these activities should have a monopoly, especially if that monopoly is rigged.

As Karl has so often pointed out, you can start your own root.

>
> Civil society needs to participate in any and all activities and needs to stand up to the business and government interests in all fora..  Are you suggesting that civil society leave certain venues only to business interests?

I am suggesting that this caucus spends all of its time and energy on
"stuff"  that makes zero (or near enough to zero) impact on the
Internet.

>
> I think civil society must participate in all of it and not limit itself to a few venues.

Agreed, but we focus on IGF (and now Gs 8 & 20) and not on processes
where actual policy is made.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu May 12 10:22:11 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:22:11 -0300
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF92@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
	<C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF92@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikiB-tfOtJQ30-5cex8Ee4m8yjpgA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Wolfgang, please see some comments below:

2011/5/12 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

>
>
> Wolfgang:
> I am not so sure, Lee. The G 20 includes the three countries who are
> proposing a new intergovernmental platform for Internet Governance (to close
> a gap in the existing Internet Governance ecosystem, as they argue). This
> will be negotiated in the he 2nd Committee of the UN General Assembly in
> October 2011. With other words, there is an option that Brazil, India and
> South Africa bring their IBSA-idea also to the forhtcoming G 20 summit in
> November, not waiting, until the French president takes the Internet to his
> G 20 priority list. And there is China and Russia. With other words, the
> chances for civil society to get heard are probably better in the G 8
> environmentr than in the G 20.
>

I disagree with your judgement, for some reasons:

- There is no clear proposal on enhanced cooperation yet and how it would
complement the IGF. IBSA statement manifests unhappiness with status quo:
Internet policies being decided between developed countries and exported to
the world. It is a call to multilateralism in opposition to plurilateralism.
It is not an opposition to multistekeholderism per se. Of course, we need to
act and make sure that EC proposal does not kill multistakeholderism as
horrible "collateral damage".

- Brazil and India will participate in a workshop in the IGF, organized by
civil society, to discuss IG institutional Gaps and to share their views on
EC and other stuff. Are G8 countries being as open to explain their
selective view of multistakeholderism?

- India and Brazil made concrete proposals in CSTD WG to improve the IGF,
the only platform for full multistakeholder involvement we have today, while
most developed countries did not want any significant changes. We know that
if the IGF is not improved, it will fade away eventually. What are these G8
countries doing to improve the IGF, despite paying lip service?

- Take a look at the line-up of sessions CS has proposed to discuss IG
regime improvement (in WSIS, in IGF, ICANN). How many G8 representatives you
find there?

- Since CSTD WG meeting in February, in Montreaux, India and Brazil defended
more civil society seats in the drafting group that was supposed to write
the CSTD WG report and defended more civil society seats in the MAG. G8
countries have taken the opposite direction, being tied-up and committed to
private interests and shutting down the participation of civil society.

- Certainly China and Russia have different interests. But the world is
diverse, we cannot keep discussing among friends, otherwise we will never
reach a truly global solution to problems. And honestly, with policies such
as Hadopi, I cannot say that France is a "friendly" country that respects
freedom of expression, can I?


>
> Nevertheless in both G8 and G20 civil society has something unique to offer
> in substance to the "discussion platform" (or the forthcoming "negotiation
> table"). Just to call for a seat in the front row makes not so much sense.
> In WSIS, when CS was asked what the added value could be, CS brings to the
> table, we argued
> a. expertise and specific (technical) knowledge
> b. linkage to the real problems of the real people on the ground
> c. networks for capacity building at the grass root level
> d. power to mobilize masses of Internet users
>
> Totally agree with you.


> The question we have to answer today is, inter alia:
> a. What we can do to enhance cybersecurity for individual end users?
> b. How can we enhance the knowledge of people whi to use the Internet in
> the right way?
> c. How we can continue with efforts to bridge the digital divde on the
> ground?
> e. How can we safe human rights like freedom of expression and privacy of
> individual users against undue political or commercial interests by
> governments and corporations.
>

I certainly would not list cybersecurity as a top priority (points a and b)
on this list, first because I believe we should be careful not to adhere to
a governmental and business agenda, secondly while so many people are still
excluded from the internet, the first concern of the world should be
access. And I would certainly add the problem of ensuring freedom of
expression (opposed to filtering and censorship and opposed to policies such
as COICA and Hadopi) and of ensuring access to information and knowledge.


>
> BTW, when we had the ATLAS (ICANNs At-Large Summit) in Mexico, we called
> this as the "first" world summit of Internet users (a little bit
> overstretched, but not so wrong). This was in March 2009. More or less there
> was an agreement to have a 2nd Internet User Summit (ATLAS II) in the near
> future. If we think about 2012 or 2013 we have to start the preparations
> rather soon.
>
> 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/20110512/e5fa9687/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 katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 10:41:10 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (katitza at eff.org)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
 Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org><20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch><4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org><20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch><BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC support). I will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in the last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I should make sure to defend, please let me know. 

All the best, Katitza.  
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"

Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our
main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
proposal.



Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a
revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without
reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex:
CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential
shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business sector
and the technical community, in my view.



A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas,
reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet
for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.



The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
workshop, with half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview
of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the
proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be dedicated to
focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don’t know if that
would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this would be
in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by
political considerations.



In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups
will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF
workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
improvement?



Best,

Marília

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> > >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> > >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> > >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
> >
> > >> that the three be merged.
> > > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
> > >
> > > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
> > > desires of Marilia and yourself?
> >
> > A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
> > have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
> > teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
> > "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
> > the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
> > more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
> > difficult to speculate.
>
> Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
> debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
> support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
> you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
> the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
> approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
> at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
> other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
> non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
> with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
> debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
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/20110512/5d28f0d2/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 ella.com  Thu May 12 10:42:27 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 10:42:27 -0400
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinz+_156VYJbPRgEhL7zOOzUfxqMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com> <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com> <B14F66EA-B604-431C-A71A-7BEEE6BDA408@ella.com> <BANLkTinz+_156VYJbPRgEhL7zOOzUfxqMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8DA85CB4-21D3-4AA8-B720-6D6B681F0495@ella.com>


On 12 May 2011, at 09:51, McTim wrote:

> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 12 May 2011, at 09:00, McTim wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE
>>> activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for
>>> potential IG bodies???
>> 
>> 
>> The so called actual internet governance activities are also political affairs and also largely controlled by business interests.   And tell me, where is it written that these activities should have a monopoly, especially if that monopoly is rigged.
> 
> As Karl has so often pointed out, you can start your own root.

Sooner or later someone will succeed.

The root is after all, just a glorified "phone book", translating one kind of name into another kind of name (we pretend that IP addresses are numbers, but they really are just names constructed of digits).  

At this point ICANN's root has the trust and the mindshare, but that is a fragile thing and ICANN could easily lose the trust/mindshare.  Initiating support for another root just requires a bit of energy that  so far, no one has managed.  Sooner or later, one will emerge - someone just needs to put in the effort.  

Count on it.

> 
>> 
>> Civil society needs to participate in any and all activities and needs to stand up to the business and government interests in all fora..  Are you suggesting that civil society leave certain venues only to business interests?
> 
> I am suggesting that this caucus spends all of its time and energy on
> "stuff"  that makes zero (or near enough to zero) impact on the
> Internet.

I think you misjudge the vectors that might have an influence now or in the future.    I think civil society has to find a way to participate in all of it, and not just the ones who currently seem to be key.

> 
>> 
>> I think civil society must participate in all of it and not limit itself to a few venues.
> 
> Agreed, but we focus on IGF (and now Gs 8 & 20) and not on processes
> where actual policy is made.
> 

Many of us do focus in ICANN.  And though it sometimes seems like a losing proposition for civil society, lots of people keep banging their heads against that particular brick wall.

As for the RIRs, they have a self declared control on IP addresses.  One that is only partial over IPv4, but will be complete over IPv6 (could this be a reason for pushing it so hard?).  Replacing IP addressing is hard, a lot harder, than replacing DNS naming.  But also this control is more prone to national attack and thus requires more energy to defend.  The policy making of these organizations is open, but it is particularistic and takes a high degree of energy and expense for people to have an effect on.  So yes, it is good that people get involved in RIPE and ARIN etc...  and civil society is involved Milton has led the way and as you intimated once, we need more Miltons to take on the RIRs.

But even among the RIRs coordination is an iffy thing, and one that certainly does not seem to be open to the rest of us.   If we want to have any sort of voice at the NRO level, or on its shadow puppet the ASO,  we need to apply multistakeholder pressure from outside. Multistakeholder pressure requires governement particpation at this point in history and thus yes, we need to work with individual governments, G8, G20, ..., the OECD, the UN etc.  And we even need to work with business and the internet community, we just should not be overtaken by any them, and should not assume their good will toward civil society.

a.

ps: if it seems that i have become more outspoken all of a sudden it is because i no longer have any role that requires me to be neutral.  as someone said, i am free now.

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 10:57:15 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (katitza at eff.org)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:57:15 +0000
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org><20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch><4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org><20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch><BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com><1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for the MAG. However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I will be working in the SOP workshops. 

If there are other workshops that are well done (ie touching the key and hot policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do not miss it! Katitza. 
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: katitza at eff.org
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
 Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"

Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC support). I will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in the last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I should make sure to defend, please let me know. 

All the best, Katitza.  
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"

Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our
main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
proposal.



Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a
revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without
reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex:
CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential
shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business sector
and the technical community, in my view.



A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas,
reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet
for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.



The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
workshop, with half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview
of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the
proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be dedicated to
focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don’t know if that
would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this would be
in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by
political considerations.



In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups
will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF
workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
improvement?



Best,

Marília

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> > >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> > >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> > >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
> >
> > >> that the three be merged.
> > > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
> > >
> > > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
> > > desires of Marilia and yourself?
> >
> > A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
> > have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
> > teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
> > "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
> > the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
> > more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
> > difficult to speculate.
>
> Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
> debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
> support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
> you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
> the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
> approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
> at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
> other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
> non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
> with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
> debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
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/20110512/fa7a4157/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 May 12 11:21:25 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 17:21:25 +0200
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
	<466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com>

I will be going to the meetings.

We have the workshop scoring activity underway already and it ends at
the end of this week.

I am focusing on IG4D Workshops.

IGC really needs to work with its MAG representatives on issues of interest.

Sorry for the short reply...travelling.....!

Fouad



On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM,  <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
> I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for the MAG.
> However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I will be
> working in the SOP workshops.
>
> If there are other workshops that are well done (ie touching the key and hot
> policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do not miss
> it! Katitza.
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> ________________________________
> From: katitza at eff.org
> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>;
> Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
> Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
> Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC support). I
> will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in the
> last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I should
> make sure to defend, please let me know.
>
> All the best, Katitza.
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> ________________________________
> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
> proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>
> Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our
> main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
> proposal.
>
>
>
> Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a
> revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without
> reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex:
> CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential
> shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business sector
> and the technical community, in my view.
>
>
>
> A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
> starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas,
> reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet
> for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.
>
>
>
> The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
> workshop, with half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview
> of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the
> proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be dedicated to
> focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don’t know if that
> would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this would be
> in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by
> political considerations.
>
>
>
> In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups
> will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
> non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF
> workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
> improvement?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Marília
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>> > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> > > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>> > >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
>> > >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead,
>> > >> they
>> > >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and
>> > >> suggesting
>> >
>> > >> that the three be merged.
>> > > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>> > >
>> > > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
>> > > desires of Marilia and yourself?
>> >
>> > A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
>> > have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
>> > teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
>> > "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
>> > the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
>> > more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
>> > difficult to speculate.
>>
>> Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
>> debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
>> support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
>> you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
>> the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
>> approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
>> at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
>> other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
>> non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
>> with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
>> debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu May 12 11:58:39 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 00:58:39 +0900
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
	<466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
	<BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
> I will be going to the meetings.
>
> We have the workshop scoring activity underway already and it ends at
> the end of this week.
>
> I am focusing on IG4D Workshops.
>
> IGC really needs to work with its MAG representatives on issues of interest.
>

You have that the wrong way round.

MAG representatives really need to work with the IGC.

When nominated everyone made promises to consult, inform, etc.  It's
not been happening.

Adam
'

> Sorry for the short reply...travelling.....!
>
> Fouad
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM,  <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>> I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for the MAG.
>> However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I will be
>> working in the SOP workshops.
>>
>> If there are other workshops that are well done (ie touching the key and hot
>> policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do not miss
>> it! Katitza.
>>
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: katitza at eff.org
>> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>;
>> Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
>> Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>> Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC support). I
>> will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in the
>> last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I should
>> make sure to defend, please let me know.
>>
>> All the best, Katitza.
>>
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
>> proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>
>> Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our
>> main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
>> proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a
>> revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without
>> reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex:
>> CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential
>> shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business sector
>> and the technical community, in my view.
>>
>>
>>
>> A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
>> starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas,
>> reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet
>> for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.
>>
>>
>>
>> The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
>> workshop, with half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview
>> of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the
>> proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be dedicated to
>> focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don’t know if that
>> would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this would be
>> in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by
>> political considerations.
>>
>>
>>
>> In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups
>> will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
>> non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF
>> workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
>> improvement?
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Marília
>>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>> > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>> > > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>> > >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
>>> > >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead,
>>> > >> they
>>> > >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and
>>> > >> suggesting
>>> >
>>> > >> that the three be merged.
>>> > > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>>> > >
>>> > > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
>>> > > desires of Marilia and yourself?
>>> >
>>> > A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
>>> > have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
>>> > teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
>>> > "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
>>> > the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
>>> > more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
>>> > difficult to speculate.
>>>
>>> Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
>>> debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
>>> support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
>>> you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
>>> the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
>>> approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
>>> at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
>>> other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
>>> non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
>>> with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
>>> debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu May 12 12:02:14 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:02:14 -0400
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikiB-tfOtJQ30-5cex8Ee4m8yjpgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
	<C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF92@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,<BANLkTikiB-tfOtJQ30-5cex8Ee4m8yjpgA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BE6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Agreed with Marila.

With caveat that access, freedom of expression and cybersecurity are all important and  it is appropriate for all 3 issues and other Internet Governance issues to be discussed at G20 meetings, just as they have been at G8 meetings for years already; as well as IGF.

Lee




________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 10:22 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
Subject: Re: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

Hi Wolfgang, please see some comments below:

2011/5/12 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>


Wolfgang:
I am not so sure, Lee. The G 20 includes the three countries who are proposing a new intergovernmental platform for Internet Governance (to close a gap in the existing Internet Governance ecosystem, as they argue). This will be negotiated in the he 2nd Committee of the UN General Assembly in October 2011. With other words, there is an option that Brazil, India and South Africa bring their IBSA-idea also to the forhtcoming G 20 summit in November, not waiting, until the French president takes the Internet to his G 20 priority list. And there is China and Russia. With other words, the chances for civil society to get heard are probably better in the G 8 environmentr than in the G 20.

I disagree with your judgement, for some reasons:

- There is no clear proposal on enhanced cooperation yet and how it would complement the IGF. IBSA statement manifests unhappiness with status quo: Internet policies being decided between developed countries and exported to the world. It is a call to multilateralism in opposition to plurilateralism. It is not an opposition to multistekeholderism per se. Of course, we need to act and make sure that EC proposal does not kill multistakeholderism as horrible "collateral damage".

- Brazil and India will participate in a workshop in the IGF, organized by civil society, to discuss IG institutional Gaps and to share their views on EC and other stuff. Are G8 countries being as open to explain their selective view of multistakeholderism?

- India and Brazil made concrete proposals in CSTD WG to improve the IGF, the only platform for full multistakeholder involvement we have today, while most developed countries did not want any significant changes. We know that if the IGF is not improved, it will fade away eventually. What are these G8 countries doing to improve the IGF, despite paying lip service?

- Take a look at the line-up of sessions CS has proposed to discuss IG regime improvement (in WSIS, in IGF, ICANN). How many G8 representatives you find there?

- Since CSTD WG meeting in February, in Montreaux, India and Brazil defended more civil society seats in the drafting group that was supposed to write the CSTD WG report and defended more civil society seats in the MAG. G8 countries have taken the opposite direction, being tied-up and committed to private interests and shutting down the participation of civil society.

- Certainly China and Russia have different interests. But the world is diverse, we cannot keep discussing among friends, otherwise we will never reach a truly global solution to problems. And honestly, with policies such as Hadopi, I cannot say that France is a "friendly" country that respects freedom of expression, can I?


Nevertheless in both G8 and G20 civil society has something unique to offer in substance to the "discussion platform" (or the forthcoming "negotiation table"). Just to call for a seat in the front row makes not so much sense. In WSIS, when CS was asked what the added value could be, CS brings to the table, we argued
a. expertise and specific (technical) knowledge
b. linkage to the real problems of the real people on the ground
c. networks for capacity building at the grass root level
d. power to mobilize masses of Internet users

Totally agree with you.

The question we have to answer today is, inter alia:
a. What we can do to enhance cybersecurity for individual end users?
b. How can we enhance the knowledge of people whi to use the Internet in the right way?
c. How we can continue with efforts to bridge the digital divde on the ground?
e. How can we safe human rights like freedom of expression and privacy of individual users against undue political or commercial interests by governments and corporations.

I certainly would not list cybersecurity as a top priority (points a and b) on this list, first because I believe we should be careful not to adhere to a governmental and business agenda, secondly while so many people are still excluded from the internet, the first concern of the world should be access. And I would certainly add the problem of ensuring freedom of expression (opposed to filtering and censorship and opposed to policies such as COICA and Hadopi) and of ensuring access to information and knowledge.


BTW, when we had the ATLAS (ICANNs At-Large Summit) in Mexico, we called this as the "first" world summit of Internet users (a little bit overstretched, but not so wrong). This was in March 2009. More or less there was an agreement to have a 2nd Internet User Summit (ATLAS II) in the near future. If we think about 2012 or 2013 we have to start the preparations rather soon.

Wolfgang
____________________________________________________________
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




--
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 vanda at uol.com.br  Thu May 12 12:03:30 2011
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:03:30 -0300
Subject: RES: [governance] Nominations open 2011 Communication for Social
 Change Awards / UQ CCSC
In-Reply-To: <p0620073ec9e476f5a779@[10.0.1.6]>
References: <p0620073ec9e476f5a779@[10.0.1.6]>
Message-ID: <00cc01cc10be$24498390$6cdc8ab0$@uol.com.br>

Hi George
 Thanks for that. I will send to the Foundation I am chair of the board, to
present the case of deploying PLC (power line communication) we allowed the
poor community to organize themselves with a page on the web and since they
are in the way to the site where satellites are launching  here, they
started to offer some facilities as place to stop, to taste the local food
etc. to tourists.
 Looks that is the spirit! 

Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados 
IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8
01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil
Tel + 5511 3266.6253
Mob + 55118181.1464


-----Mensagem original-----
De: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de
George Sadowsky
Enviada em: terça-feira, 3 de maio de 2011 12:17
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Assunto: [governance] Nominations open 2011 Communication for Social Change
Awards / UQ CCSC

>X-Originating-IP: [202.12.29.199]
>Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:59:20 +1000
>From: Sylvia Cadena <sylvia at apnic.net>
>Reply-To: sylvia at apnic.net
>Organization: APNIC
>User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: grantees-2010 at isif.asia, grantees-2009 at isif.asia
>Subject: Your help to spread the word: Nominations open 2011 
>Communication
>  for Social Change Awards / UQ CCSC
>
>Hi everybody,
>
>The Centre for Communication and Social Change, at the University of 
>Queensland, has opened this year's applications for the Communication 
>for Social Change Awards. This is the global award, and I believe that 
>you and your organizations are perfect candidates, as the award was 
>established to recognise those that have demonstrated extraordinary 
>commitment to using communication to transform and empower marginalised 
>communities. If you are not interested to nominate your self or your 
>organization for the award, please help us to spread the word about it 
>among your colleagues and networks.
>
>The award consists of a $AUD 2500 prize and a travel package to 
>participate in the Award Ceremony in Australia. The visit will also be 
>used to promote the impact that communication projects can have in 
>development efforts. Each year two awards will be presented: one to an 
>individual and one to an organisation/institution. Those awarded can be 
>either practitioners/activists working the field, or theorists.
>
>Please see the information sheet attached or visit for more information:
>http://www.uq.edu.au/ccsc/how-to-apply. For further information please 
>contact Jessica London at j.london at uq.edu.au or call on (+61
>7) 3346 3092.
>
>Applications close *Friday the 24th of June 2011*
>
>All the best,
>
>Sylvia
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>Sylvia Cadena                                   |  Project Officer
>ISIF Information Society Innovation Fund        |  sylvia at isif.asia
>APNIC Resource Quality Assurance                |  sylvia at apnic.net
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>sip: sylvia at voip.apnic.net                      |  skype: sylviacadena
>Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) |  Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 
>PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia  |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199
>6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD          |  http://www.apnic.net
>_______________________________________________________________________
>_____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


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

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

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


From nb at bollow.ch  Thu May 12 12:45:15 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 18:45:15 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] open standard for "facebook crowd" interactions
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com> (message
	from McTim on Thu, 12 May 2011 16:00:22 +0300)
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
 <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110512164515.2C1AB15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE
> activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for
> potential IG bodies???

Cool idea.

How's the following for a topic?

I think that it should be possible for me to interact with anyone who
is "on facebook" and who wants to interact with me, without having to
put my personal data onto the servers of a company that I don't trust
at all, and which in addition is under the jurisdiction of a country
whose legal system I trust much less than I trust the Swiss one.

Now I'm not demanding that Facebook Inc. should go out business or
that they'd have to "give away" copies of their software, just that
there should be open interfaces allowing others to implement their own
software to communicate with the "facebook crowd" while keeping their
personal data on servers of their own choosing. (And analogously for
other "social network" server based services.)

I have no idea what would be a suitable forum for effectively
addressing this topic.

Thoughts?

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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu May 12 13:41:04 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 05:41:04 +1200
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim0bzLPyPeaR2G0S-q6J51DArXdVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com>
	<B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTi=ELtAWFGd-00Z0M4LhJYHyBFNAqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikG-3JRVXa+7ty1BTPRoPRmCC=WJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim0bzLPyPeaR2G0S-q6J51DArXdVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinsF_RRmp-V4NsgKv+pWwFSmNTmmw@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, Deidre :)

I have also informed other Pacific Island countries of the WSIS and
sent them the links and advised them that it would be good to get
together in their countries and log in and raise their issues and
views.  Hopefully, some will register.

Warm Regards,

Sala

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Deirdre Williams
<williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> In case you are counting I have registered for remote participation too.
> Deirdre
> PS That's at least 2 remote small islands on opposite sides of the world :-)
>
> --
> “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
>
>
>



-- 
Sala

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 14:02:58 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:02:58 -0700
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DCC20D2.7090803@eff.org>

Hi Marilia,
>
> In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other 
> groups will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of 
> non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several 
> IGF workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 
> workshops on IGF improvement?
>

You do not need to merge. You are encourage to merge. MAG members are 
encourage to "grade" the workshops to see if they comply with the 
multi-stakeholder requirements.

Happy to back up Marilian on this.

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

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

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


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu May 12 14:04:40 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 06:04:40 +1200
Subject: [governance] open standard for "facebook crowd" interactions
In-Reply-To: <20110512164515.2C1AB15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
	<C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110512164515.2C1AB15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=kgN=UAaCOY4AuxbKg4JAV6_CBGQ@mail.gmail.com>

:) I think that both are important, the vehicles in which IG issues
will be raised as well as the substantive IG issues. There is no point
in developing an excellent discussion on substantive IG issues that
are holistic if it cannot be strategically implemented.

The discussion on vehicles and methodology is also critical. In
courtrooms, even if advocates have clear substantive arguments the
Judge or Judges can refuse to hear them if they do not have locus
standii or if they come in the wrong vehicle.

It follows that in a complex world which is riddled with politics,
agendas, the wisdom to navigate through the maze and to find the
portal in which issues can be raised is key.

If Facebook is registered in the US, it follows that it is subject to
the laws of the US or specifically California, correct me if I am
wrong. As such, one can make submissions to the regulators within the
US on the issue and argue from a "discrimination" standpoint. Without
a doubt it would be challenged in courts as Facebook is a million if
not billion dollar revenue. If the US has ratified the ICCPR and has
enshrined within its constitution anti discrimination framework, locus
can clearly be built and submissions made to either the regulators to
make a ruling on opening the door for other sub-applications to rest
in facebook, an unbundling concept.

Having said that, the converse argument is that the internet should
not be regulated period.

I think that as discussions emerge on which layers to regulate as it
did with the telecommunications industry in the past, it is critical
that jurists start thinking about the philosophies that create the
foundation on which regulations will emerge. Questions such as do we
have a heavy handed regulatory approach or light handed emerges. The
impact of alot of these decisions, even if made on US soil clearly has
a spillover effect on the rest of the world as was the example Ncube
Benson, a Diplo Fellow in Vilnius has alluded to during the Net
Neutrality Workshop as he was commenting.

This is for discussion only and does not constitute legal advice and
should not be relied on. This is merely an opinion.


On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:45 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE
>> activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for
>> potential IG bodies???
>
> Cool idea.
>
> How's the following for a topic?
>
> I think that it should be possible for me to interact with anyone who
> is "on facebook" and who wants to interact with me, without having to
> put my personal data onto the servers of a company that I don't trust
> at all, and which in addition is under the jurisdiction of a country
> whose legal system I trust much less than I trust the Swiss one.
>
> Now I'm not demanding that Facebook Inc. should go out business or
> that they'd have to "give away" copies of their software, just that
> there should be open interfaces allowing others to implement their own
> software to communicate with the "facebook crowd" while keeping their
> personal data on servers of their own choosing. (And analogously for
> other "social network" server based services.)
>
> I have no idea what would be a suitable forum for effectively
> addressing this topic.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> 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
>
>



-- 
Sala

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

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu May 12 14:04:36 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 02:04:36 +0800
Subject: [governance] Privacy Flare-Up Prompts Facebook Meetings with
 Congress, Employees
Message-ID: <BDD333E26E8B4A17AA3EEAE23F85C36C@userPC>

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/facebook-privacy-meeting/

Roughly 20% of Facebook users are from the US (based on 500,000,000 users)
and as a proportion Canadians are I believe, the largest users of Facebook
by overall national population.

If, as these folks in the US congress seem to think, there are issues of
privacy in the use of Facebook that might at some point warrant
legislative/regulatory intervention--what is the proper jurisdiction in
which that legislation/regulation should occur?  

Where it has its legal registration, where the majority of its shareholders
reside, where it's the impacts of its behaviours are most widely experienced
and so on and so on? 

Why should (can I expect) US Congressmen to act on my behalf to protect my
privacy as a Canadian using Facebook and what about all of the other
400,000,000 non-US users?

These, I think, are among the issues of Internet Governance for CS to be
addressing and not simply the issues, but more importantly what modalities
could/should be established to respond to these issues on behalf of all of
those impacted.

Mike


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

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

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


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu May 12 14:20:04 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 06:20:04 +1200
Subject: [governance] Privacy Flare-Up Prompts Facebook Meetings with
 Congress, Employees
In-Reply-To: <BDD333E26E8B4A17AA3EEAE23F85C36C@userPC>
References: <BDD333E26E8B4A17AA3EEAE23F85C36C@userPC>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikwHQ_ffaikg0LW52nZDOy0RfhN6g@mail.gmail.com>

There should be a distinction between shareholders and customers. The
actual shareholders, Zuckerberg and others are the ones who receive
dividends from the company.

Because the consumers drive the company in terms of the creation of a
demand through exploiting people's need and basic desire to
communicate and keep in touch with their friends and relatives - to
persuade them to boycott Facebook is going to have to have a strategic
approach that is psychological and persuasive enough to cause them to
forego facebook, at least for a week or two. If facebook users all
over the world collectively shut down for a day, a week, a month, two
months, it would literally cripple facebook. Advertising companies who
share revenue sharing agreements with Facebook would pull back,
investors may have second thoughts, the directors would sit up and
take notice.

Facebook probably thinks that it is untouchable and is a virtual world
on its own. Until someone regulates it. For someone from outside the
US, it could be through the Alien Tort Act if it still exists.

The other way is through the GATS but it will meet some seriously
heavy resistance from lobying by multinationals.

The real question though is whose interests are being served?



On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/facebook-privacy-meeting/
>
> Roughly 20% of Facebook users are from the US (based on 500,000,000 users)
> and as a proportion Canadians are I believe, the largest users of Facebook
> by overall national population.
>
> If, as these folks in the US congress seem to think, there are issues of
> privacy in the use of Facebook that might at some point warrant
> legislative/regulatory intervention--what is the proper jurisdiction in
> which that legislation/regulation should occur?
>
> Where it has its legal registration, where the majority of its shareholders
> reside, where it's the impacts of its behaviours are most widely experienced
> and so on and so on?
>
> Why should (can I expect) US Congressmen to act on my behalf to protect my
> privacy as a Canadian using Facebook and what about all of the other
> 400,000,000 non-US users?
>
> These, I think, are among the issues of Internet Governance for CS to be
> addressing and not simply the issues, but more importantly what modalities
> could/should be established to respond to these issues on behalf of all of
> those impacted.
>
> Mike
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
Sala

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

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

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu May 12 14:26:51 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 20:26:51 +0200
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com>

Kindly accept my apologies in advance for being direct as this is upsetting.

Adam that would be arguable. I appreciate your coming back at me as if I or our MAG members may be faulty. I have never received a single response to my requests to the list when I requested for input. this happened in 2009, 2010 and now fingers being pointed in 2011 which is upsetting.

At my end, i have taken IGC statements to the MAG meetings and attempted to the best of my knowledge. I have run after IGC members present taking ongoing advice on issues. Ginger, Parminder, Anriyette, Jovan, Ian, Bertrand, Miguel, George, Qusai, Marillia, Bill and the list goes on have all been very kind and helping. 

For the first time in 3 years you interacted with me in the last mag meeting on issues of participation. Sorry to say Avri has been right in many circumstances and so has Parminder that IGC does lack coordination. It is not time to point fingers but to help work out and strategize for the upcoming meeting.

People here come from various organizations and backgrounds. In my case the developing state is my major concern and the continuous death and human right violation issues associated with Internet policy are the biggest to threat to me, my citizenry and many others in the developing world.

I have witnessed that there is more interest in being part of mag by many then to actually tackle the issues relevant to IG. We have to get our act straight otherwise this is not belong us.

Where is IGC's MAG working group thread or discussions, why haven't the coordinators ever initiated such a thing? Why isn't there a skype discussion group for Igc in open consultations and mag? Why aren't we coordinated whereas we take so much time to relate and repeat histories of policy institutions and arrangements.

I hear you Adam but you do have the senior experience and exposure to help us from developing countries, work with us and support advice sharing for open consultations and mag meetings. Being cynical is fine but really I get upset with all my developed country CS peers to be arguing on issues of least relevance to the developing world and more on history and 
Process theory. 

If we can't be helped by you then don't ridicule us especially when we are a victim of our own severe life threatening situations and still struggling. I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and it does hold value.

I wish you and many others would be more understanding.


Fouad Bajwa
sent using my iPad

On 12 May 2011, at 05:58 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I will be going to the meetings.
>> 
>> We have the workshop scoring activity underway already and it ends at
>> the end of this week.
>> 
>> I am focusing on IG4D Workshops.
>> 
>> IGC really needs to work with its MAG representatives on issues of interest.
>> 
> 
> You have that the wrong way round.
> 
> MAG representatives really need to work with the IGC.
> 
> When nominated everyone made promises to consult, inform, etc.  It's
> not been happening.
> 
> Adam
> '
> 
>> Sorry for the short reply...travelling.....!
>> 
>> Fouad
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM,  <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>>> I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for the MAG.
>>> However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I will be
>>> working in the SOP workshops.
>>> 
>>> If there are other workshops that are well done (ie touching the key and hot
>>> policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do not miss
>>> it! Katitza.
>>> 
>>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: katitza at eff.org
>>> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
>>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>;
>>> Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
>>> Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>> Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC support). I
>>> will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in the
>>> last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I should
>>> make sure to defend, please let me know.
>>> 
>>> All the best, Katitza.
>>> 
>>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
>>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
>>> proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>> 
>>> Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our
>>> main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
>>> proposal.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a
>>> revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without
>>> reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex:
>>> CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential
>>> shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business sector
>>> and the technical community, in my view.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
>>> starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas,
>>> reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet
>>> for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
>>> workshop, with half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview
>>> of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the
>>> proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be dedicated to
>>> focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don’t know if that
>>> would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this would be
>>> in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by
>>> political considerations.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups
>>> will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
>>> non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF
>>> workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
>>> improvement?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Marília
>>> 
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
>>>>>>> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead,
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and
>>>>>>> suggesting
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> that the three be merged.
>>>>>> Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
>>>>>> desires of Marilia and yourself?
>>>>> 
>>>>> A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
>>>>> have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
>>>>> teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
>>>>> "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
>>>>> the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
>>>>> more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
>>>>> difficult to speculate.
>>>> 
>>>> Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
>>>> debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
>>>> support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
>>>> you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
>>>> the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
>>>> approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
>>>> at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
>>>> other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
>>>> non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
>>>> with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
>>>> debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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 katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 14:35:55 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:35:55 -0700
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org>

Hi there,

The MAG work is quite "intensive" you can't consult each decision. All 
depend of what others will say
or do as you know Adam.

I am only encouraging people to raise their voice if there are other 
workshops (beside the ones that IGC presented) that we should give high 
priority. There is still time to speak out. So please do so.

You should also give us trust to do our job since there is no logic to 
consult each step we made.

Katitza


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

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

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


From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Thu May 12 14:37:44 2011
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:37:44 -0600
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <8DA85CB4-21D3-4AA8-B720-6D6B681F0495@ella.com>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
	<C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com>
	<B14F66EA-B604-431C-A71A-7BEEE6BDA408@ella.com>
	<BANLkTinz+_156VYJbPRgEhL7zOOzUfxqMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<8DA85CB4-21D3-4AA8-B720-6D6B681F0495@ella.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinzgy9rFZxH32w8-rAkJLDaQuL4-Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

I really liked this part of your answer:
*
The root is after all, just a glorified "phone book", translating one kind
of name into another kind of name (we pretend that IP addresses are numbers,
but they really are just names constructed of digits).*

Both ideas.

I also can read and feel you are a free person!

I agree with you on your evaluation of the political settings and the
importance of participation for netizens in all fora. One thing I find
paradoxical is that Governments and Societies in general are not dedicating
more resources to IG when the Internet and ICTs in general have become even
an always permanent (and then invisible) part of our daily lives.

Keep the good work,

Miguel

Disclaimer
My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my
employer or any other institution

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

>
> On 12 May 2011, at 09:51, McTim wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12 May 2011, at 09:00, McTim wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE
> >>> activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for
> >>> potential IG bodies???
> >>
> >>
> >> The so called actual internet governance activities are also political
> affairs and also largely controlled by business interests.   And tell me,
> where is it written that these activities should have a monopoly, especially
> if that monopoly is rigged.
> >
> > As Karl has so often pointed out, you can start your own root.
>
> Sooner or later someone will succeed.
>
> The root is after all, just a glorified "phone book", translating one kind
> of name into another kind of name (we pretend that IP addresses are numbers,
> but they really are just names constructed of digits).
>
> At this point ICANN's root has the trust and the mindshare, but that is a
> fragile thing and ICANN could easily lose the trust/mindshare.  Initiating
> support for another root just requires a bit of energy that  so far, no one
> has managed.  Sooner or later, one will emerge - someone just needs to put
> in the effort.
>
> Count on it.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Civil society needs to participate in any and all activities and needs
> to stand up to the business and government interests in all fora..  Are you
> suggesting that civil society leave certain venues only to business
> interests?
> >
> > I am suggesting that this caucus spends all of its time and energy on
> > "stuff"  that makes zero (or near enough to zero) impact on the
> > Internet.
>
> I think you misjudge the vectors that might have an influence now or in the
> future.    I think civil society has to find a way to participate in all of
> it, and not just the ones who currently seem to be key.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I think civil society must participate in all of it and not limit itself
> to a few venues.
> >
> > Agreed, but we focus on IGF (and now Gs 8 & 20) and not on processes
> > where actual policy is made.
> >
>
> Many of us do focus in ICANN.  And though it sometimes seems like a losing
> proposition for civil society, lots of people keep banging their heads
> against that particular brick wall.
>
> As for the RIRs, they have a self declared control on IP addresses.  One
> that is only partial over IPv4, but will be complete over IPv6 (could this
> be a reason for pushing it so hard?).  Replacing IP addressing is hard, a
> lot harder, than replacing DNS naming.  But also this control is more prone
> to national attack and thus requires more energy to defend.  The policy
> making of these organizations is open, but it is particularistic and takes a
> high degree of energy and expense for people to have an effect on.  So yes,
> it is good that people get involved in RIPE and ARIN etc...  and civil
> society is involved Milton has led the way and as you intimated once, we
> need more Miltons to take on the RIRs.
>
> But even among the RIRs coordination is an iffy thing, and one that
> certainly does not seem to be open to the rest of us.   If we want to have
> any sort of voice at the NRO level, or on its shadow puppet the ASO,  we
> need to apply multistakeholder pressure from outside. Multistakeholder
> pressure requires governement particpation at this point in history and thus
> yes, we need to work with individual governments, G8, G20, ..., the OECD,
> the UN etc.  And we even need to work with business and the internet
> community, we just should not be overtaken by any them, and should not
> assume their good will toward civil society.
>
> a.
>
> ps: if it seems that i have become more outspoken all of a sudden it is
> because i no longer have any role that requires me to be neutral.  as
> someone said, i am free now.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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/20110512/35706cbc/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 katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 14:43:41 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:43:41 -0700
Subject: [governance] Grading Workshops
Message-ID: <4DCC2A5D.6020400@eff.org>

Greetings:

I will start reading one by one the over 100 workshops that has been presented to see weather or not the workshops comply with "basic" requirements published in the IGF website (gender balance, region, etc):

0 = not at all
1 =  has made a little effort to satisfy the criteria
2 = somewhat meets the criteria
3= fully meets the criteria


We have only a week to do this and happy and happy to work with someone if someone is wiling to do so.! I will be available online and we can spend the whole day reading the workshops proposals.

The workshop proposals can be found at :http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2011/proposals

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 12 14:53:07 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 20:53:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org>
Message-ID: <AA4EF2E2-3AFB-4EA7-A579-59FC3D00CFD5@gmail.com>

Katitza you Are very right.

when I see the coordination of other stakeholder groups it does hurt because the IGC can really coordinate to deal with these live things before during and after these meetings. It is a role that everyone in IGC should contribute to.

Secondly since when has IGC started treating it's mag reps indifferently? Despite being mag members we are IGC members and we were nominated by IGC and IGC interests are our interests and we remain equal IGC members.

I see this finger pointing and the reply is that mag members can be changed but lacking the drive and co-ordination will never be replaced. First the co-ordination has to be improved.

Fouad Bajwa
sent using my iPad

On 12 May 2011, at 08:35 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

> Hi there,
> 
> The MAG work is quite "intensive" you can't consult each decision. All depend of what others will say
> or do as you know Adam.
> 
> I am only encouraging people to raise their voice if there are other workshops (beside the ones that IGC presented) that we should give high priority. There is still time to speak out. So please do so.
> 
> You should also give us trust to do our job since there is no logic to consult each step we made.
> 
> Katitza
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 14:55:03 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:55:03 -0700
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <AA4EF2E2-3AFB-4EA7-A579-59FC3D00CFD5@gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org> <AA4EF2E2-3AFB-4EA7-A579-59FC3D00CFD5@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DCC2D07.7020102@eff.org>

Fouad:

I disagree. The MAG is semi-dead so most of the important work if focus 
on CSTD. I can understand that. The MAG has not done anything until now 
that we have to grade the workshop. All the work comes in once.

So now: I need to work on this!

Big Hug

On 5/12/11 11:53 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> Katitza you Are very right.
>
> when I see the coordination of other stakeholder groups it does hurt because the IGC can really coordinate to deal with these live things before during and after these meetings. It is a role that everyone in IGC should contribute to.
>
> Secondly since when has IGC started treating it's mag reps indifferently? Despite being mag members we are IGC members and we were nominated by IGC and IGC interests are our interests and we remain equal IGC members.
>
> I see this finger pointing and the reply is that mag members can be changed but lacking the drive and co-ordination will never be replaced. First the co-ordination has to be improved.
>
> Fouad Bajwa
> sent using my iPad
>
> On 12 May 2011, at 08:35 PM, Katitza Rodriguez<katitza at eff.org>  wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> The MAG work is quite "intensive" you can't consult each decision. All depend of what others will say
>> or do as you know Adam.
>>
>> I am only encouraging people to raise their voice if there are other workshops (beside the ones that IGC presented) that we should give high priority. There is still time to speak out. So please do so.
>>
>> You should also give us trust to do our job since there is no logic to consult each step we made.
>>
>> Katitza
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 14:59:26 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:59:26 -0700
Subject: [governance] Grading Workshops
In-Reply-To: <4DCC2A5D.6020400@eff.org>
References: <4DCC2A5D.6020400@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DCC2E0E.9000803@eff.org>

Greetings:

One more thing: I will opposed to any intent to block a workshops based 
in the content of the workshop. And I will challenge any rule that 
attempts to do so, if any.


On 5/12/11 11:43 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> I will start reading one by one the over 100 workshops that has been 
> presented to see weather or not the workshops comply with "basic" 
> requirements published in the IGF website (gender balance, region, etc):
>
> 0 = not at all
> 1 =  has made a little effort to satisfy the criteria
> 2 = somewhat meets the criteria
> 3= fully meets the criteria
>
>
> We have only a week to do this and happy and happy to work with 
> someone if someone is wiling to do so.! I will be available online and 
> we can spend the whole day reading the workshops proposals.
>
> The workshop proposals can be found at 
> :http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2011/proposals
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 15:17:20 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:17:20 -0700
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikmrwW_QJPciZ5nkr_0v4OT8xSsfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>	<BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>	<A441065D-647A-437C-BC84-572D8C7AB43C@ella.com>	<p06240823c9f191eef102@192.168.1.160> <BANLkTikmrwW_QJPciZ5nkr_0v4OT8xSsfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DCC3240.5070706@eff.org>

Hi there,

There have been NO discussion as of now. The discussion will be held in 
Geneva during the MAG meeting. MAGs members needs to prepare for that 
meeting and DO their job. AKA: Read the 111 workshops approx. 
descriptions and grade them as I explained in an email. Then, we will be 
ready to combat any attempt to block any workshop based on "dubious 
strategies", if there any. Happy to work with Marilia and anyone else 
who wants to work with us.

During the MAG consultation, we will discuss one by one each workshop. I 
save a few workshops last year from merging thanks from the feedback I 
get from Twitter and the IGF mailing list.  Ginger provides a lot of 
support to MAG members since she was monitoring what the list was saying 
and send the feedback to MAG members so they can act upon that.



On 5/12/11 6:46 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp 
> <mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>> wrote:
>
>     Perhaps our MAG members could do something?
>
> It would be great to have an update about discussions in the MAG. I 
> have heard from MAG members about a month ago that the Secretariat 
> would like to discuss proposals in MAG mailing list first, in order to 
> arrive at the open consultations with a draft list of selected 
> proposals and suggestions to merge.
>
> Did this discussion take place? If so, were the proposals under 
> "taking stocks" debated?
>
> Marília
>
>     Adam
>
>
>
>
>         Hi,
>
>         I think Louis  explained the motivation for the merger quite well.
>
>
>         On 12 May 2011, at 03:25, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>
>              ICC/BASIS and ISOC just want to snow the serious issues.
>             A Sesame street kind of nice talk. Don't merge.
>
>
>
>         Re;  On 12 May 2011, at 08:59, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
>              In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not
>             merge, other groups will probably try to impinge us with
>             the political burden of non-cooperation. We cannot let
>             this stick. There are always several IGF workshops on NN,
>             youth, etc. So why there can¹t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
>             improvement?
>
>
>             From the vantage point of someone  who has watched the
>             process for many years, I think this is an important
>             caution.  The other protagonists, will be on chat together
>             and will be working to reinforce each others comments,
>             thus you will face a well spoken wall of opposition.  The
>             civil society reps are often more individualistic and are
>             not as well coordinated as supporting each others
>             positions in rapid succession.
>
>
>         In every break, the private sector and the internet community
>         caucus and plan their strategies for the next session.  Often
>         the civil society participants are more involved in being
>         upset at each other for one reason or another.
>
>         Or at least that is how it looked from my vantage point.
>
>         My recommendation, coordinate and stick to your positions.  
>         Consider that is is better to have you workshop kicked out and
>         protest than it is to have it turned in regurgitated pabulum.
>
>         a.
>
>
>         a.____________________________________________________________
>         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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/5f39106b/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 ella.com  Thu May 12 15:25:31 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:25:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org>
Message-ID: <FE004EB0-F71C-4E6D-BE7E-C628D42FBE80@ella.com>

Hi,

It might help if, as seems to be done by other groups in the MAG, there were a constant Skype, or other IM, communications going on at all times among the Civil Society reps in the room and others from civil society

As I said, one often sees how the Business and Internet Community reps reinforce each other's arguments each taking a piece of the argument, and essentially take the air out of any opposition to the their point of view.  Working together, the civil society reps ought to be able to stand up to them.

This is not meant to point fingers or to say anyone has done something wrong, only to recommend that civil society start borrowing some of the very effective tactics some of our 'partners' have been using to their good advantage.  Business interests has been very effective at gaining advantage for their points of view often to the detriment of civil society. It is time to start turning the tables.

a.



On 12 May 2011, at 14:35, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

> Hi there,
> 
> The MAG work is quite "intensive" you can't consult each decision. All depend of what others will say
> or do as you know Adam.
> 
> I am only encouraging people to raise their voice if there are other workshops (beside the ones that IGC presented) that we should give high priority. There is still time to speak out. So please do so.
> 
> You should also give us trust to do our job since there is no logic to consult each step we made.
> 
> Katitza
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Thu May 12 15:27:34 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:27:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] Grading Workshops
In-Reply-To: <4DCC2A5D.6020400@eff.org>
References: <4DCC2A5D.6020400@eff.org>
Message-ID: <518EE9B1-F283-4908-A2A4-0BF1556F9EB1@ella.com>

Hi,

This is a good idea, perhaps we can find a way to help with the reviews.

a.


On 12 May 2011, at 14:43, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

> Greetings:
> 
> I will start reading one by one the over 100 workshops that has been presented to see weather or not the workshops comply with "basic" requirements published in the IGF website (gender balance, region, etc):
> 
> 0 = not at all
> 1 =  has made a little effort to satisfy the criteria
> 2 = somewhat meets the criteria
> 3= fully meets the criteria
> 
> 
> We have only a week to do this and happy and happy to work with someone if someone is wiling to do so.! I will be available online and we can spend the whole day reading the workshops proposals.
> 
> The workshop proposals can be found at :http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2011/proposals
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 15:27:43 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:27:43 -0700
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <FE004EB0-F71C-4E6D-BE7E-C628D42FBE80@ella.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org> <FE004EB0-F71C-4E6D-BE7E-C628D42FBE80@ella.com>
Message-ID: <4DCC34AF.7050005@eff.org>

Happy to do so. I am working with Fouad and Valeria, and I have sent an 
email in private to everyone who raise their voice. I will copy to that 
group.

I just trashed out Skype due to the security hole. I might need to 
reinstall but not sure if the patch has been released yet!!!


On 5/12/11 12:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It might help if, as seems to be done by other groups in the MAG, there were a constant Skype, or other IM, communications going on at all times among the Civil Society reps in the room and others from civil society
>
> As I said, one often sees how the Business and Internet Community reps reinforce each other's arguments each taking a piece of the argument, and essentially take the air out of any opposition to the their point of view.  Working together, the civil society reps ought to be able to stand up to them.
>
> This is not meant to point fingers or to say anyone has done something wrong, only to recommend that civil society start borrowing some of the very effective tactics some of our 'partners' have been using to their good advantage.  Business interests has been very effective at gaining advantage for their points of view often to the detriment of civil society. It is time to start turning the tables.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 12 May 2011, at 14:35, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> The MAG work is quite "intensive" you can't consult each decision. All depend of what others will say
>> or do as you know Adam.
>>
>> I am only encouraging people to raise their voice if there are other workshops (beside the ones that IGC presented) that we should give high priority. There is still time to speak out. So please do so.
>>
>> You should also give us trust to do our job since there is no logic to consult each step we made.
>>
>> Katitza
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 15:29:03 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:29:03 -0700
Subject: [governance] Grading Workshops
In-Reply-To: <518EE9B1-F283-4908-A2A4-0BF1556F9EB1@ella.com>
References: <4DCC2A5D.6020400@eff.org> <518EE9B1-F283-4908-A2A4-0BF1556F9EB1@ella.com>
Message-ID: <4DCC34FF.2090004@eff.org>

sure. Let me know how you want to proceed and how we divide the work. 
Valeria and I will be meeting in two hours to do so.

On 5/12/11 12:27 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a good idea, perhaps we can find a way to help with the reviews.
>
> a.
>
>
> On 12 May 2011, at 14:43, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> Greetings:
>>
>> I will start reading one by one the over 100 workshops that has been presented to see weather or not the workshops comply with "basic" requirements published in the IGF website (gender balance, region, etc):
>>
>> 0 = not at all
>> 1 =  has made a little effort to satisfy the criteria
>> 2 = somewhat meets the criteria
>> 3= fully meets the criteria
>>
>>
>> We have only a week to do this and happy and happy to work with someone if someone is wiling to do so.! I will be available online and we can spend the whole day reading the workshops proposals.
>>
>> The workshop proposals can be found at :http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2011/proposals
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 15:44:11 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:44:11 -0700
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <FE004EB0-F71C-4E6D-BE7E-C628D42FBE80@ella.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org> <FE004EB0-F71C-4E6D-BE7E-C628D42FBE80@ella.com>
Message-ID: <4DCC388B.5050808@eff.org>

On 5/12/11 12:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It might help if, as seems to be done by other groups in the MAG, there were a constant Skype, or other IM, communications going on at all times among the Civil Society reps in the room and others from civil society

This is true. We usually have support from the previous coordinators  
ie: Ginger. She was the one to set up the skype, provide feedback from 
the community to MAG, follow twitter etc.. very difficult to do everyone 
one person.

I truly would be happy to have help if someone is willing to do "actual" 
work.

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 17:22:05 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:22:05 -0700
Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Grading Workshops
Message-ID: <4DCC4F7D.9090509@eff.org>

Greetings everyone:

Three days ago MAG members received an email from the IGF Secretariat 
requesting us to grade the 100+ workshops that have been submitted. It's 
a tricky job. The grading encourage workshops but not force them to 
merge: this has been the "unwritten" rule "so far". All depend on many 
factors, including workshop organizers willingness to help the 
Secretariat and work as a coalition.

There are many times that a merge make sense. There are opportunities in 
which people may discuss the same issue, and it worth it the merge. You 
can create a big coalition and work with other stakeholders in the areas 
you work on. It has encourage new ways of collaboration with people that 
otherwise will not work together. There is also the need to understand 
that there "might" be limitation of space ... There are also strategies 
where people present workshops to "save space" without presenting good 
workshops descriptions.

Last year we identified several workshops that did not have a civil 
society representative. During the MAG meeting, those workshops were 
identified, and suggestions were made to include a civil society 
representative. This could happen in the other direction if your 
workshop does not met the criteria of relevance, diversity, gender 
balance, developing countries, etc

I have added to a small group of people who have raised their voice to 
help with this tricky tasks. Thanks for helping civil society MAG 
members grade the workshops.

These people are:

fouadbajwa at gmail.com
mariliamaciel at gmail.com
gpaque at gmail.com
jeremy at ciroap.org
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
valeriab at apc.org
iza at anr.org
parminder at itforchange.net
graciela at nupef.org.br

All the best,

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 17:31:33 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:31:33 -0700
Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Grading Workshops
In-Reply-To: <4DCC4F7D.9090509@eff.org>
References: <4DCC4F7D.9090509@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DCC51B5.2020306@eff.org>

Please noted that MAG members from all stakeholders will submit their 
views to the IGF Secretariat by Sunday night at the latest. The IGF 
Secretariat will consolidate all the submissions.

I am not sure how the dynamics of this year MAG meeting will work. It 
would be ideal if all civil society MAG members sent a "unify" 
spreadsheet. It's difficult but it's a lot of work. It might be good to 
try that.

On 5/12/11 2:22 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Greetings everyone:
>
> Three days ago MAG members received an email from the IGF Secretariat 
> requesting us to grade the 100+ workshops that have been submitted. 
> It's a tricky job. The grading encourage workshops but not force them 
> to merge: this has been the "unwritten" rule "so far". All depend on 
> many factors, including workshop organizers willingness to help the 
> Secretariat and work as a coalition.
>
> There are many times that a merge make sense. There are opportunities 
> in which people may discuss the same issue, and it worth it the merge. 
> You can create a big coalition and work with other stakeholders in the 
> areas you work on. It has encourage new ways of collaboration with 
> people that otherwise will not work together. There is also the need 
> to understand that there "might" be limitation of space ... There are 
> also strategies where people present workshops to "save space" without 
> presenting good workshops descriptions.
>
> Last year we identified several workshops that did not have a civil 
> society representative. During the MAG meeting, those workshops were 
> identified, and suggestions were made to include a civil society 
> representative. This could happen in the other direction if your 
> workshop does not met the criteria of relevance, diversity, gender 
> balance, developing countries, etc
>
> I have added to a small group of people who have raised their voice to 
> help with this tricky tasks. Thanks for helping civil society MAG 
> members grade the workshops.
>
> These people are:
>
> fouadbajwa at gmail.com
> mariliamaciel at gmail.com
> gpaque at gmail.com
> jeremy at ciroap.org
> ajp at glocom.ac.jp
> valeriab at apc.org
> iza at anr.org
> parminder at itforchange.net
> graciela at nupef.org.br
>
> All the best,
>
> Katitza
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 19:38:28 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:38:28 -0700
Subject: [governance] ACTION: IGC inputs to the civil society MAGs towards
 the next OC and MAG meeting
Message-ID: <4DCC6F74.8060308@eff.org>

Greetings:

Next week is the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings. There are 
several items that need to be addressed during the meeting. Civil 
society MAG members (Valeria, Graciela, Fouad and myself) would love to 
hear from you. This is the time to speak. Please do so.

Ginger Paque has kindly agree to summarize your inputs.

All the best,

-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Thu May 12 20:42:40 2011
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 19:42:40 -0500
Subject: [governance] ACTION: IGC inputs to the civil society MAGs
 towards the next OC and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCC6F74.8060308@eff.org>
References: <4DCC6F74.8060308@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DCC7E80.5080300@paque.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/c9eb5cb8/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 katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 20:48:50 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 17:48:50 -0700
Subject: [governance] ACTION: IGC inputs to the civil society MAGs
 towards the next OC and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCC7E80.5080300@paque.net>
References: <4DCC6F74.8060308@eff.org> <4DCC7E80.5080300@paque.net>
Message-ID: <4DCC7FF2.4020909@eff.org>

Greetings:

We are looking for suggestions re: MAG meeting on what issues we should 
bring into the table.
Can you please send some talking points to us that we can raise during 
the meeting?

Some quick examples:

What happen with the Regional IGFs.. The inputs from Regional IGF to the 
main IGF.
The status of the semi-dead MAG. No Chair. CSTD: Any suggestion that we 
should know from those who follow CSTD that we need to be aware. Funding 
for developing countries to attend IGF.

All the best, Katitza


>
>
> On 5/12/2011 6:38 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>> Greetings:
>>
>> Next week is the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings. There are 
>> several items that need to be addressed during the meeting. Civil 
>> society MAG members (Valeria, Graciela, Fouad and myself) would love 
>> to hear from you. This is the time to speak. Please do so.
>>
>> Ginger Paque has kindly agree to summarize your inputs.
>>
>> All the best,
>>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/e14a23f6/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 May 12 23:08:16 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 12:08:16 +0900
Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Grading Workshops
In-Reply-To: <4DCC4F7D.9090509@eff.org>
References: <4DCC4F7D.9090509@eff.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikm_xddC+bhbu0sxqmfrrPWSR1sRA@mail.gmail.com>

These guidelines might also be helpful <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2011>

In the past one of the few rules was that if you organized a workshop
then you must submit a report.  And if you didn't submit a report then
you would not be eligible to organize a workshop at an IGF in the
future.  Simple and pretty fair rule: a single page report in return
for free meeting space, etc. and the opportunity to contribute to the
output of the IGF. This criteria seems to be missing this year.
Perhaps good for a MAG member to check on the MAG list about this.

And please take my name off the list of people reviewing workshops,
what spare time I have is taken with ICANN's NomCom and travel.

Thanks,

Adam



On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
> Greetings everyone:
>
> Three days ago MAG members received an email from the IGF Secretariat
> requesting us to grade the 100+ workshops that have been submitted. It's a
> tricky job. The grading encourage workshops but not force them to merge:
> this has been the "unwritten" rule "so far". All depend on many factors,
> including workshop organizers willingness to help the Secretariat and work
> as a coalition.
>
> There are many times that a merge make sense. There are opportunities in
> which people may discuss the same issue, and it worth it the merge. You can
> create a big coalition and work with other stakeholders in the areas you
> work on. It has encourage new ways of collaboration with people that
> otherwise will not work together. There is also the need to understand that
> there "might" be limitation of space ... There are also strategies where
> people present workshops to "save space" without presenting good workshops
> descriptions.
>
> Last year we identified several workshops that did not have a civil society
> representative. During the MAG meeting, those workshops were identified, and
> suggestions were made to include a civil society representative. This could
> happen in the other direction if your workshop does not met the criteria of
> relevance, diversity, gender balance, developing countries, etc
>
> I have added to a small group of people who have raised their voice to help
> with this tricky tasks. Thanks for helping civil society MAG members grade
> the workshops.
>
> These people are:
>
> fouadbajwa at gmail.com
> mariliamaciel at gmail.com
> gpaque at gmail.com
> jeremy at ciroap.org
> ajp at glocom.ac.jp
> valeriab at apc.org
> iza at anr.org
> parminder at itforchange.net
> graciela at nupef.org.br
>
> All the best,
>
> Katitza
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri May 13 00:24:08 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 07:24:08 +0300
Subject: [governance] open standard for "facebook crowd" interactions
In-Reply-To: <20110512164515.2C1AB15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
 <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com> <20110512164515.2C1AB15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTim5HSpMaxV0nfkrdKDLDeCmCuigRQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE
>> activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for
>> potential IG bodies???
>
> Cool idea.
>
> How's the following for a topic?
>
> I think that it should be possible for me to interact with anyone who
> is "on facebook" and who wants to interact with me, without having to
> put my personal data onto the servers of a company that I don't trust
> at all, and which in addition is under the jurisdiction of a country
> whose legal system I trust much less than I trust the Swiss one.
>
> Now I'm not demanding that Facebook Inc. should go out business or
> that they'd have to "give away" copies of their software, just that
> there should be open interfaces allowing others to implement their own
> software to communicate with the "facebook crowd" while keeping their
> personal data on servers of their own choosing. (And analogously for
> other "social network" server based services.)


Those things already exist, and account (in part) for the success of
FB/Twitter/etc.  Isn't that the whole point of APIs?

from wikipedia:

More than 250,000 websites have integrated with Facebook Platform
More than 100 million Facebook users engage with Facebook on external
websites every month

That is why FB put Burson Marsteller on an anti-Google campaign
recently, Google was scraping FB data for its "Social Circle".


>
> I have no idea what would be a suitable forum for effectively
> addressing this topic.

It has already been addressed IMO,

If you want to interact with FB, you are free to do so, if not, then
don't (and build your own thing).


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From pouzin at well.com  Fri May 13 01:38:32 2011
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 07:38:32 +0200
Subject: [governance] ACTION: IGC inputs to the civil society MAGs towards
 the next OC and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCC7FF2.4020909@eff.org>
References: <4DCC6F74.8060308@eff.org>
	<4DCC7E80.5080300@paque.net>
	<4DCC7FF2.4020909@eff.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=eXNpbJk+uLE5ENf450-p+LA-8xw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
. . .

>
>  Funding for developing countries to attend IGF.
>

This topic is a must. But it should be organized, promoted and run by people
from LDC's.

The document below might provide some starting points:
http://www.eurolinc.eu/spip.php?article72

Best
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/2c3cf722/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 May 13 03:19:37 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:19:37 +0800
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
Message-ID: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>

It is about 48 hours since the consensus call on the letter to President
Sarkozy was made, and so far 62 of 63 unique respondents have answered
affirmatively, with the other respondent abstaining.  The final
statement is now at
http://www.igcaucus.org/open-letter-president-sarkozy-eg8-meeting-plan,
in identical form to the version on which the poll was called, save for
a punctuation correction.

Therefore, we can consider the Caucus in favour of this statement, which
should now be translated and disseminated.  I will liaise with Divina
about that, and with anyone else who has contacts that would be useful
for its dissemination.

For interest and transparency, the details of those who participated in
the poll are below.  However, the letter as usual goes out under the
IGC's name as a collective, without individual signatures.  Having said
that, I suggest - unless anyone objects - we also open it up to
signature by other civil society groups, which signatures can be
collected while the translation is in progress.

Finally and on a different note, we have recently had an influx of new
members of this list, presumably in anticipation of the 2011 IGF
meeting.  Welcome!

In favour (one double-voter deleted):

Adam Peake
Alain Ilunga
Alan Alegre
Anja Kovacs
Antoine Kantiza
Avri Doria
Baudouin Schombe
Carolina Aguerre
Charity Gamboa-Embley
Daniel Oppermann
Daniel Pimienta
Deirdre Williams
D Graziano
Dixie Hawtin
Eleanna Kafeza
Fatima Cambronero
Fouad Bajwa
Ginger Paque
Gorka Orueta
Grace Githaiga
Graciela Selaimen
Gurumurthy Kasinathan
Hakikur Rahman
Hanane Boujemi
Hindenburgo Pires
Hong Xue
Ian Peter
Iliya Bazlyankov
Imran Ahmed Shah
Izumi Aizu
Jacob Odame
Jamil Goheer
Jeanette Hofmann
Jean-Yves Gatete
Jeremy Hunsinger
Jeremy Malcolm
Julián Casasbuenas G
Karim Attoumani Mohamed
Lorena Jaume-Palasi
Louis Pouzin
Lyman Chapin
Marie Georges
Milda Wolf
Milton L. Mueller
Mohamed Tijani Ben Jemaa
Mohamed Zahran
Monique Chartrand
Naveed Haq
Norbert Bollow
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Omar Kaminski
Parminder Jeet Singh
Paul Lehto
Ray Plzak
Reileen Dulay
Ricardo Patara
Roger Clarke
Rudi Vansnick
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Sylvia Caras
Tracey Naughton
William Drake

Abstaining:

David Allen

-- 

*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_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/4fc767b7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/4fc767b7/attachment.bin>

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri May 13 06:01:52 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 11:01:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] Grading Workshops
In-Reply-To: <4DCC2A5D.6020400@eff.org>
References: <4DCC2A5D.6020400@eff.org>
Message-ID: <eQM+GamQGQzNFAkl@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4DCC2A5D.6020400 at eff.org>, at 11:43:41 on Thu, 12 May 2011, 
Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> writes
>I will start reading one by one the over 100 workshops that has been presented to see weather or not the workshops comply with "basic"
>requirements published in the IGF website (gender balance, region, etc):
>
>0 = not at all
>1 =  has made a little effort to satisfy the criteria
>2 = somewhat meets the criteria
>3= fully meets the criteria

Last year the "traffic light chart" had a total of 101 workshop 
proposals:

Access             6
CIR               14
Diversity         11
Openness          29
Security/Privacy  15
Capacity Building  9
Development       15
Emerging Issues    2

Given the changes to the timetabling (and the concept of "feeders") I 
reckon it'll be more difficult this year to reduce the numbers to a 
manageable proportion.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 13 06:46:12 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 19:46:12 +0900
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on  the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
 <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
 <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-
 @bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
 <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-
 @bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
 <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p0624081ac9f2b4da24c9@[192.168.1.160]>

Fouad, a shame you have taken such offence.  I do 
know what it's like to be criticized... I was a 
MAG member and coordinator for a couple of years. 
But you are very sensitive. And blaming the 
coordinators makes no sense, just do your part.

More important though is something you say at the end of your long email:


>I have already been threatened three times 
>during MAG meetings etc and it does hold value.

Threats of what kind?  Doesn't sound good at all.  Please explain.


As for the rest, hope all the MAG members will 
remember what they said when taking part in the 
nominating process and having names put forward 
for the MAG.  Not clear what any does anymore.

Adam



>Kindly accept my apologies in advance for being direct as this is upsetting.
>
>Adam that would be arguable. I appreciate your 
>coming back at me as if I or our MAG members may 
>be faulty. I have never received a single 
>response to my requests to the list when I 
>requested for input. this happened in 2009, 2010 
>and now fingers being pointed in 2011 which is 
>upsetting.
>
>At my end, i have taken IGC statements to the 
>MAG meetings and attempted to the best of my 
>knowledge. I have run after IGC members present 
>taking ongoing advice on issues. Ginger, 
>Parminder, Anriyette, Jovan, Ian, Bertrand, 
>Miguel, George, Qusai, Marillia, Bill and the 
>list goes on have all been very kind and helping.
>
>For the first time in 3 years you interacted 
>with me in the last mag meeting on issues of 
>participation. Sorry to say Avri has been right 
>in many circumstances and so has Parminder that 
>IGC does lack coordination. It is not time to 
>point fingers but to help work out and 
>strategize for the upcoming meeting.
>
>People here come from various organizations and 
>backgrounds. In my case the developing state is 
>my major concern and the continuous death and 
>human right violation issues associated with 
>Internet policy are the biggest to threat to me, 
>my citizenry and many others in the developing 
>world.
>
>I have witnessed that there is more interest in 
>being part of mag by many then to actually 
>tackle the issues relevant to IG. We have to get 
>our act straight otherwise this is not belong us.
>
>Where is IGC's MAG working group thread or 
>discussions, why haven't the coordinators ever 
>initiated such a thing? Why isn't there a skype 
>discussion group for Igc in open consultations 
>and mag? Why aren't we coordinated whereas we 
>take so much time to relate and repeat histories 
>of policy institutions and arrangements.
>
>I hear you Adam but you do have the senior 
>experience and exposure to help us from 
>developing countries, work with us and support 
>advice sharing for open consultations and mag 
>meetings. Being cynical is fine but really I get 
>upset with all my developed country CS peers to 
>be arguing on issues of least relevance to the 
>developing world and more on history and
>Process theory.
>
>If we can't be helped by you then don't ridicule 
>us especially when we are a victim of our own 
>severe life threatening situations and still 
>struggling. I have already been threatened three 
>times during MAG meetings etc and it does hold 
>value.
>
>I wish you and many others would be more understanding.
>
>
>Fouad Bajwa
>sent using my iPad
>
>On 12 May 2011, at 05:58 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>>  On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  I will be going to the meetings.
>>>
>>>  We have the workshop scoring activity underway already and it ends at
>>>  the end of this week.
>>>
>>>  I am focusing on IG4D Workshops.
>>>
>>>  IGC really needs to work with its MAG 
>>>representatives on issues of interest.
>>>
>>
>>  You have that the wrong way round.
>>
>  > MAG representatives really need to work with the IGC.
>>
>>  When nominated everyone made promises to consult, inform, etc.  It's
>>  not been happening.
>>
>>  Adam
>>  '
>>
>>>  Sorry for the short reply...travelling.....!
>>>
>>>  Fouad
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM,  <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>  >>> I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for the MAG.
>>>>  However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I will be
>>>>  working in the SOP workshops.
>>>>
>>>>  If there are other workshops that are well 
>>>>done (ie touching the key and hot
>>>>  policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do not miss
>>>>  it! Katitza.
>>>>
>>>>  Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>
>>>>  ________________________________
>>>>  From: katitza at eff.org
>>>>  Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>  Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
>>>>  To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>;
>>>>  Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>  ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
>>>>  Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
>>>>  Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>>>  Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC support). I
>>>>  will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in the
>>>>  last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I should
>>>>  make sure to defend, please let me know.
>>>>
>>>>  All the best, Katitza.
>>>>
>>>>  Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>
>>>>  ________________________________
>>>>  From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>  Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>  Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
>>>>  To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>  ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia 
>>>>Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>  Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
>>>>  proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>>>
>>>>  Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult 
>>>>to speculate. I believe that our
>>>>  main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
>>>>  proposal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a
>>>>  revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without
>>>>  reaching any conclusions) and we should not 
>>>>focus on procedural issues (ex:
>>>>  CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential
>>>>  shortcomings of the proposals advanced, 
>>>>respectively, by the business sector
>>>>  and the technical community, in my view.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
>>>>  starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas,
>>>>  reach a clear understanding and exorcise 
>>>>some ghosts that hunt IGF¹s closet
>>>>  for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
>>>>  workshop, with half of it dedicated to a 
>>>>³setting the scene² and an overview
>>>>  of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the
>>>>  proposal from the business sector) and the 
>>>>other half would be dedicated to
>>>>  focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don¹t know if that
>>>>  would be acceptable to the other groups and 
>>>>I am not convinced this would be
>>>>  in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by
>>>>  political considerations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups
>>>>  will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
>>>>  non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF
>>>>  workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can¹t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
>>>>  improvement?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Best,
>>>>
>>>>  Marília
>>>>
>>>>  On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>  On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>>>>>  Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>  The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
>>>>>>>>  "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead,
>>>>>>>>  they
>>>>>>>>  responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and
>>>>>>>>  suggesting
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  that the three be merged.
>>>>>>>  Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
>  >>>>>> desires of Marilia and yourself?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
>>>>>>  have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
>>>>>>  teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
>>>>>>  "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
>>>>>>  the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
>>>>>>  more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
>>>>>>  difficult to speculate.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
>>>>>  debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
>>>>>  support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
>>>>>  you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
>>>>>  the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
>>>>>  approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
>>>>>  at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
>>>>>  other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
>>>>>  non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
>>>>>  with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
>>>>>  debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>>>>>
>>>>>  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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>>  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

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

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri May 13 07:32:37 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 14:32:37 +0300
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <p0624081ac9f2b4da24c9@192.168.1.160>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com>
 <p0624081ac9f2b4da24c9@192.168.1.160>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikwRV0EsPrjwE_mqtnBF+8Lj4PpuQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> Fouad, a shame you have taken such offence.  I do know what it's like to be
> criticized... I was a MAG member and coordinator for a couple of years. But
> you are very sensitive. And blaming the coordinators makes no sense, just do
> your part.
>
> More important though is something you say at the end of your long email:
>
>
>> I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and it
>> does hold value.
>
> Threats of what kind?  Doesn't sound good at all.  Please explain.

Yes, this sounds disturbing, I would like to hear some details as well!

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Fri May 13 07:58:30 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 13:58:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <p0624081ac9f2b4da24c9@192.168.1.160>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com>
	<p0624081ac9f2b4da24c9@192.168.1.160>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=JZFRjN+=kXkTQnL=D1WcZVuVQPw@mail.gmail.com>

I believe its misunderstanding the text here.

I did not blame the coordinators, I said the steps required to ensure
that IGC communicates during open consultations and MAG meetings. Its
a coordinator effort.

Sensitive is a good aspect as it enables realization and
understanding. Sensitivity to issues and situations is a very humane
activity and characteristic.

I do feel sad when alumnus MAG members do not share their knowledge or
gather existing MAG members and work with them on formulating strategy
and countering the attacks that happen.

Its easy to point fingers but not easy to make things happen and it
does take a certain sensitive mindset to make things happen.

Thanks for identifying the sensitivity in my nature.

Fouad

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> Fouad, a shame you have taken such offence.  I do know what it's like to be
> criticized... I was a MAG member and coordinator for a couple of years. But
> you are very sensitive. And blaming the coordinators makes no sense, just do
> your part.
>
> More important though is something you say at the end of your long email:
>
>
>> I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and it
>> does hold value.
>
> Threats of what kind?  Doesn't sound good at all.  Please explain.
>
>
> As for the rest, hope all the MAG members will remember what they said when
> taking part in the nominating process and having names put forward for the
> MAG.  Not clear what any does anymore.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>> Kindly accept my apologies in advance for being direct as this is
>> upsetting.
>>
>> Adam that would be arguable. I appreciate your coming back at me as if I
>> or our MAG members may be faulty. I have never received a single response to
>> my requests to the list when I requested for input. this happened in 2009,
>> 2010 and now fingers being pointed in 2011 which is upsetting.
>>
>> At my end, i have taken IGC statements to the MAG meetings and attempted
>> to the best of my knowledge. I have run after IGC members present taking
>> ongoing advice on issues. Ginger, Parminder, Anriyette, Jovan, Ian,
>> Bertrand, Miguel, George, Qusai, Marillia, Bill and the list goes on have
>> all been very kind and helping.
>>
>> For the first time in 3 years you interacted with me in the last mag
>> meeting on issues of participation. Sorry to say Avri has been right in many
>> circumstances and so has Parminder that IGC does lack coordination. It is
>> not time to point fingers but to help work out and strategize for the
>> upcoming meeting.
>>
>> People here come from various organizations and backgrounds. In my case
>> the developing state is my major concern and the continuous death and human
>> right violation issues associated with Internet policy are the biggest to
>> threat to me, my citizenry and many others in the developing world.
>>
>> I have witnessed that there is more interest in being part of mag by many
>> then to actually tackle the issues relevant to IG. We have to get our act
>> straight otherwise this is not belong us.
>>
>> Where is IGC's MAG working group thread or discussions, why haven't the
>> coordinators ever initiated such a thing? Why isn't there a skype discussion
>> group for Igc in open consultations and mag? Why aren't we coordinated
>> whereas we take so much time to relate and repeat histories of policy
>> institutions and arrangements.
>>
>> I hear you Adam but you do have the senior experience and exposure to help
>> us from developing countries, work with us and support advice sharing for
>> open consultations and mag meetings. Being cynical is fine but really I get
>> upset with all my developed country CS peers to be arguing on issues of
>> least relevance to the developing world and more on history and
>> Process theory.
>>
>> If we can't be helped by you then don't ridicule us especially when we are
>> a victim of our own severe life threatening situations and still struggling.
>> I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and it
>> does hold value.
>>
>> I wish you and many others would be more understanding.
>>
>>
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> sent using my iPad
>>
>> On 12 May 2011, at 05:58 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>
>>>  On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  I will be going to the meetings.
>>>>
>>>>  We have the workshop scoring activity underway already and it ends at
>>>>  the end of this week.
>>>>
>>>>  I am focusing on IG4D Workshops.
>>>>
>>>>  IGC really needs to work with its MAG representatives on issues of
>>>> interest.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  You have that the wrong way round.
>>>
>>  > MAG representatives really need to work with the IGC.
>>>
>>>  When nominated everyone made promises to consult, inform, etc.  It's
>>>  not been happening.
>>>
>>>  Adam
>>>  '
>>>
>>>>  Sorry for the short reply...travelling.....!
>>>>
>>>>  Fouad
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM,  <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>>
>>  >>> I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for the
>> MAG.
>>>>>
>>>>>  However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I
>>>>> will be
>>>>>  working in the SOP workshops.
>>>>>
>>>>>  If there are other workshops that are well done (ie touching the key
>>>>> and hot
>>>>>  policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do not
>>>>> miss
>>>>>  it! Katitza.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>
>>>>>  ________________________________
>>>>>  From: katitza at eff.org
>>>>>  Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>  Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
>>>>>  To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia
>>>>> Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>;
>>>>>  Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>  ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
>>>>>  Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
>>>>>  Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>>>>  Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC
>>>>> support). I
>>>>>  will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in
>>>>> the
>>>>>  last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I
>>>>> should
>>>>>  make sure to defend, please let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>>  All the best, Katitza.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>
>>>>>  ________________________________
>>>>>  From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>  Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>  Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
>>>>>  To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>  ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel
>>>>> <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>  Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
>>>>>  proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>>>>
>>>>>  Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe
>>>>> that our
>>>>>  main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
>>>>>  proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do
>>>>> a
>>>>>  revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner
>>>>> without
>>>>>  reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues
>>>>> (ex:
>>>>>  CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two
>>>>> potential
>>>>>  shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business
>>>>> sector
>>>>>  and the technical community, in my view.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
>>>>>  starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate
>>>>> ideas,
>>>>>  reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF¹s
>>>>> closet
>>>>>  for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
>>>>>  workshop, with half of it dedicated to a ³setting the scene² and an
>>>>> overview
>>>>>  of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of
>>>>> the
>>>>>  proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be
>>>>> dedicated to
>>>>>  focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don¹t know if
>>>>> that
>>>>>  would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this
>>>>> would be
>>>>>  in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move
>>>>> driven by
>>>>>  political considerations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other
>>>>> groups
>>>>>  will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
>>>>>  non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several
>>>>> IGF
>>>>>  workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can¹t be 2 or 3 workshops on
>>>>> IGF
>>>>>  improvement?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Best,
>>>>>
>>>>>  Marília
>>>>>
>>>>>  On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our
>>>>>>>>> workshop,
>>>>>>>>>  "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead,
>>>>>>>>>  they
>>>>>>>>>  responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and
>>>>>>>>>  suggesting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  that the three be merged.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
>>
>>  >>>>>> desires of Marilia and yourself?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
>>>>>>>  have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
>>>>>>>  teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic
>>>>>>> dialogue",
>>>>>>>  "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>  the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>  more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>  difficult to speculate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
>>>>>>  debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
>>>>>>  support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
>>>>>>  you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
>>>>>>  the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
>>>>>>  approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
>>>>>>  at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
>>>>>>  other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
>>>>>>  non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
>>>>>>  with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
>>>>>>  debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Greetings,
>>>>>>  Norbert



-- 
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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Fri May 13 08:23:06 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 14:23:06 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 
Please add my name
 
Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter
 
thanks
 
w

 
________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm
Gesendet: Fr 13.05.2011 09:19
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter


It is about 48 hours since the consensus call on the letter to President Sarkozy was made, and so far 62 of 63 unique respondents have answered affirmatively, with the other respondent abstaining.  The final statement is now at http://www.igcaucus.org/open-letter-president-sarkozy-eg8-meeting-plan, in identical form to the version on which the poll was called, save for a punctuation correction.

Therefore, we can consider the Caucus in favour of this statement, which should now be translated and disseminated.  I will liaise with Divina about that, and with anyone else who has contacts that would be useful for its dissemination.

For interest and transparency, the details of those who participated in the poll are below.  However, the letter as usual goes out under the IGC's name as a collective, without individual signatures.  Having said that, I suggest - unless anyone objects - we also open it up to signature by other civil society groups, which signatures can be collected while the translation is in progress.

Finally and on a different note, we have recently had an influx of new members of this list, presumably in anticipation of the 2011 IGF meeting.  Welcome!

In favour (one double-voter deleted):

Adam Peake
Alain Ilunga
Alan Alegre
Anja Kovacs
Antoine Kantiza
Avri Doria
Baudouin Schombe
Carolina Aguerre
Charity Gamboa-Embley
Daniel Oppermann
Daniel Pimienta
Deirdre Williams
D Graziano
Dixie Hawtin
Eleanna Kafeza
Fatima Cambronero
Fouad Bajwa
Ginger Paque
Gorka Orueta
Grace Githaiga
Graciela Selaimen
Gurumurthy Kasinathan
Hakikur Rahman
Hanane Boujemi
Hindenburgo Pires
Hong Xue
Ian Peter
Iliya Bazlyankov
Imran Ahmed Shah
Izumi Aizu
Jacob Odame
Jamil Goheer
Jeanette Hofmann
Jean-Yves Gatete
Jeremy Hunsinger
Jeremy Malcolm
Julián Casasbuenas G
Karim Attoumani Mohamed
Lorena Jaume-Palasi
Louis Pouzin
Lyman Chapin
Marie Georges
Milda Wolf
Milton L. Mueller
Mohamed Tijani Ben Jemaa
Mohamed Zahran
Monique Chartrand
Naveed Haq
Norbert Bollow
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Omar Kaminski
Parminder Jeet Singh
Paul Lehto
Ray Plzak
Reileen Dulay
Ricardo Patara
Roger Clarke
Rudi Vansnick
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Sylvia Caras
Tracey Naughton
William Drake

Abstaining:

David Allen


-- 


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

Read our email confidentiality notice <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print this email unless necessary.

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

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri May 13 08:24:43 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 13:24:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=JZFRjN+=kXkTQnL=D1WcZVuVQPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
 <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
 <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com>
 <p0624081ac9f2b4da24c9@192.168.1.160>
 <BANLkTi=JZFRjN+=kXkTQnL=D1WcZVuVQPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <QlqtrL6LMSzNFAHf@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <BANLkTi=JZFRjN+=kXkTQnL=D1WcZVuVQPw at mail.gmail.com>, at 
13:58:30 on Fri, 13 May 2011, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> writes
>I did not blame the coordinators, I said the steps required to ensure
>that IGC communicates during open consultations and MAG meetings. Its
>a coordinator effort.

It's very useful to have the co-ordinators on the ground at important 
events such as the next two weeks in Geneva. Doing it remotely is always 
going to much more difficult.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri May 13 08:27:09 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:27:09 +0300
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <8DA85CB4-21D3-4AA8-B720-6D6B681F0495@ella.com>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
 <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com> <B14F66EA-B604-431C-A71A-7BEEE6BDA408@ella.com>
 <BANLkTinz+_156VYJbPRgEhL7zOOzUfxqMw@mail.gmail.com> <8DA85CB4-21D3-4AA8-B720-6D6B681F0495@ella.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTim=ae+f5TPhw=Ko_HKby3fbrS3f5A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,



On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

> As for the RIRs, they have a self declared control on IP addresses.

I would say coordination, not control.


>One that is only partial over IPv4, but will be complete over IPv6 (could this be a reason for pushing it so hard?).

I would think that it is in the CS interests to push for IPv6 so every
device (owned by humans) can get an IP address.


  Replacing IP addressing is hard, a lot harder, than replacing DNS
naming.  But also this control is more prone to national attack

How so?


 and thus requires more energy to defend.  The policy making of these
organizations is open, but it is particularistic and takes a high
degree of energy and expense for people to have an effect on.  So yes,
it is good that people get involved in RIPE and ARIN etc...  and civil
society is involved Milton has led the way and as you intimated once,
we need more Miltons to take on the RIRs.


I don't think I ever intimated that the RIRs need "taking on" in any
way.  I have mentioned that the RIRs are a Model of how CS should act
in IG.

>
> But even among the RIRs coordination is an iffy thing, and one that certainly does not seem to be open to the rest of us.   If we want to have any sort of voice at the NRO level, or on its shadow puppet the ASO,  we need to apply multistakeholder pressure from outside.

I disagree, we need to be there working from the inside.  The ASO AC
is elected by each RIR community.  I am not a member of any RIR, yet I
can vote for who I want to sit on the ASO.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri May 13 08:27:53 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:27:53 +0300
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinTEp_VBKTDy3f0UjqjF2DK-5s_DA@mail.gmail.com>

2011/5/13 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
>
> Please add my name

mine too, didn't get around to hitting that link.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri May 13 08:30:10 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 21:30:10 +0900
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
  proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=JZFRjN+=kXkTQnL=D1WcZVuVQPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
 <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
 <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com>
 <p0624081ac9f2b4da24c9@192.168.1.160>
 <BANLkTi=JZFRjN+=kXkTQnL=D1WcZVuVQPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240820c9f2d2db2d12@[192.168.1.160]>

Fouad, how long have you been a MAG member?

More important, it would be good to know of the 
nature of the threats you experienced during the 
MAG meetings.

Adam



At 1:58 PM +0200 5/13/11, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>I believe its misunderstanding the text here.
>
>I did not blame the coordinators, I said the steps required to ensure
>that IGC communicates during open consultations and MAG meetings. Its
>a coordinator effort.
>
>Sensitive is a good aspect as it enables realization and
>understanding. Sensitivity to issues and situations is a very humane
>activity and characteristic.
>
>I do feel sad when alumnus MAG members do not share their knowledge or
>gather existing MAG members and work with them on formulating strategy
>and countering the attacks that happen.
>
>Its easy to point fingers but not easy to make things happen and it
>does take a certain sensitive mindset to make things happen.
>
>Thanks for identifying the sensitivity in my nature.
>
>Fouad
>
>On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>  Fouad, a shame you have taken such offence.  I do know what it's like to be
>  > criticized... I was a MAG member and coordinator for a couple of years. But
>  > you are very sensitive. And blaming the 
>coordinators makes no sense, just do
>>  your part.
>>
>>  More important though is something you say at the end of your long email:
>>
>>
>>>  I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and it
>>>  does hold value.
>>
>>  Threats of what kind?  Doesn't sound good at all.  Please explain.
>>
>>
>>  As for the rest, hope all the MAG members will remember what they said when
>>  taking part in the nominating process and having names put forward for the
>>  MAG.  Not clear what any does anymore.
>>
>>  Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>>  Kindly accept my apologies in advance for being direct as this is
>>>  upsetting.
>>>
>>>  Adam that would be arguable. I appreciate your coming back at me as if I
>>>  or our MAG members may be faulty. I have 
>>>never received a single response to
>>>  my requests to the list when I requested for input. this happened in 2009,
>>>  2010 and now fingers being pointed in 2011 which is upsetting.
>>>
>>>  At my end, i have taken IGC statements to the MAG meetings and attempted
>>>  to the best of my knowledge. I have run after IGC members present taking
>>>  ongoing advice on issues. Ginger, Parminder, Anriyette, Jovan, Ian,
>>>  Bertrand, Miguel, George, Qusai, Marillia, Bill and the list goes on have
>>>  all been very kind and helping.
>>>
>>>  For the first time in 3 years you interacted with me in the last mag
>>>  meeting on issues of participation. Sorry to 
>>>say Avri has been right in many
>  >> circumstances and so has Parminder that IGC does lack coordination. It is
>>>  not time to point fingers but to help work out and strategize for the
>>>  upcoming meeting.
>>>
>>>  People here come from various organizations and backgrounds. In my case
>>>  the developing state is my major concern and the continuous death and human
>>>  right violation issues associated with Internet policy are the biggest to
>>>  threat to me, my citizenry and many others in the developing world.
>>>
>>>  I have witnessed that there is more interest in being part of mag by many
>>>  then to actually tackle the issues relevant to IG. We have to get our act
>>>  straight otherwise this is not belong us.
>>>
>>>  Where is IGC's MAG working group thread or discussions, why haven't the
>  >> coordinators ever initiated such a thing? 
>Why isn't there a skype discussion
>>>  group for Igc in open consultations and mag? Why aren't we coordinated
>>>  whereas we take so much time to relate and repeat histories of policy
>  >> institutions and arrangements.
>>>
>>>  I hear you Adam but you do have the senior experience and exposure to help
>>>  us from developing countries, work with us and support advice sharing for
>>>  open consultations and mag meetings. Being cynical is fine but really I get
>>>  upset with all my developed country CS peers to be arguing on issues of
>  >> least relevance to the developing world and more on history and
>>>  Process theory.
>>>
>>>  If we can't be helped by you then don't ridicule us especially when we are
>>>  a victim of our own severe life threatening 
>>>situations and still struggling.
>>>  I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and it
>>>  does hold value.
>>>
>>>  I wish you and many others would be more understanding.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Fouad Bajwa
>>>  sent using my iPad
>>>
>>>  On 12 May 2011, at 05:58 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>>>   On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   I will be going to the meetings.
>>>>>
>>>>>   We have the workshop scoring activity underway already and it ends at
>>>>>   the end of this week.
>>>>>
>>>>>   I am focusing on IG4D Workshops.
>>>>>
>>>>>   IGC really needs to work with its MAG representatives on issues of
>>>>>  interest.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   You have that the wrong way round.
>>>>
>>>   > MAG representatives really need to work with the IGC.
>>>>
>>>>   When nominated everyone made promises to consult, inform, etc.  It's
>>>>   not been happening.
>>>>
>>>>   Adam
>>>>   '
>>>>
>>>>>   Sorry for the short reply...travelling.....!
>>>>>
>>>>>   Fouad
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM,  <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>   >>> I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for the
>>>  MAG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I
>>>>>>  will be
>>>>>>   working in the SOP workshops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   If there are other workshops that are well done (ie touching the key
>>>>>>  and hot
>>>>>>   policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do not
>>>>>>  miss
>>>>>>   it! Katitza.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   ________________________________
>>>>>>   From: katitza at eff.org
>>>>>>   Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>   Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
>>>>>>   To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia
>>>>>>  Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>;
>>>>>>   Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>>   ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
>>>>>>   Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
>>>>>>   Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>>>>>   Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC
>>>>>>  support). I
>>>>>>   will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in
>>>>>>  the
>>>>>>   last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I
>>>>>>  should
>>>>>>   make sure to defend, please let me know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   All the best, Katitza.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   ________________________________
>>>>>>   From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>>   Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>   Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
>>>>>>   To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>>   ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel
>>>>>>  <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>>   Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
>>>>>>   proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe
>>>>>>  that our
>>>>>>   main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
>>>>>>   proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do
>>>>>>  a
>>>>>>   revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner
>>>>>>  without
>>>>>>   reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues
>>>>>>  (ex:
>>>>>>   CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two
>>>>>>  potential
>>>>>>   shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business
>>>>>>  sector
>>>>>>   and the technical community, in my view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>  >>>>>
>>>>>>   A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
>>>>>>   starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate
>>>>>>  ideas,
>>>>>>   reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF¹s
>>>>>>  closet
>>>>>>   for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
>  >>>>>  workshop, with half of it dedicated to a ³setting the scene² and an
>>>>>>  overview
>>>>>>   of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of
>>>>>>  the
>>>>>>   proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be
>>>>>>  dedicated to
>>>>>>   focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don¹t know if
>>>>>>  that
>>>>>>   would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this
>>>>>>  would be
>>>>>>   in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move
>>>>>>  driven by
>>>>>>   political considerations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other
>>>>>>  groups
>>>>>>   will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
>>>>>>   non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several
>>>>>>  IGF
>>>>>>   workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can¹t be 2 or 3 workshops on
>>>>>>  IGF
>>>>>>   improvement?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Marília
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our
>>>>>>>>>>  workshop,
>>>>>>>>>>   "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead,
>>>>>>>>>>   they
>>>>>>>>>>   responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and
>>>>>>>>>>   suggesting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   that the three be merged.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
>>>
>>>   >>>>>> desires of Marilia and yourself?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
>>>>>>>>   have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
>>>>>>>>   teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic
>>>>>>>>  dialogue",
>>>>>>>>   "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed
>>>>>>>>  to
>>>>>>>>   the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how
>>>>>>>>  much
>>>>>>>>   more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is
>>>>>>>>  not
>>>>>>>>   difficult to speculate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
>>>>>>>   debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
>>>>>>>   support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
>>>>>>>   you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
>>>>>>>   the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
>>>>>>>   approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
>>>>>>>   at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
>>>>>>>   other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
>>>>>>>   non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
>>>>>>>   with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
>>>>>>>   debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Greetings,
>>>>>>>   Norbert
>
>
>
>--
>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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri May 13 08:37:12 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:37:12 +0300
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <p06240820c9f2d2db2d12@192.168.1.160>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com>
 <p0624081ac9f2b4da24c9@192.168.1.160> <BANLkTi=JZFRjN+=kXkTQnL=D1WcZVuVQPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <p06240820c9f2d2db2d12@192.168.1.160>
Message-ID: <BANLkTim2vOPKG_dMi_ifR=nGcknzZXhSWw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> Fouad, how long have you been a MAG member?
>
> More important, it would be good to know of the nature of the threats you
> experienced during the MAG meetings.

and who made them.  Are they minuted?


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng  Fri May 13 08:45:56 2011
From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 13:45:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinTEp_VBKTDy3f0UjqjF2DK-5s_DA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<BANLkTinTEp_VBKTDy3f0UjqjF2DK-5s_DA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTiknai2cjwpc6KpXmxeC99tfQ9LFEw@mail.gmail.com>

Greetings, good work.
Include me.

Kind regards.

Sonigitu Ekpe

On 13 May 2011 13:27, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

2011/5/13 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
>
> Please add my name

mine too, didn't get around to hitting that link.


--
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 subscrib...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/27d3559e/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 valeriab at apc.org  Fri May 13 08:50:38 2011
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 07:50:38 -0500
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTiknai2cjwpc6KpXmxeC99tfQ9LFEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<BANLkTinTEp_VBKTDy3f0UjqjF2DK-5s_DA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTiknai2cjwpc6KpXmxeC99tfQ9LFEw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=GXXiWFDXkmdG2NembgM=j4goVVA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jeremy,

You can also include my name. Valeria Betancourt.

Thanks,

Valeria

2011/5/13 Sonigitu Ekpe <sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng>

> Greetings, good work.
> Include me.
>
> Kind regards.
>
> Sonigitu Ekpe
>
> On 13 May 2011 13:27, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2011/5/13 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
> >
> > Please add my name
>
> mine too, didn't get around to hitting that link.
>
>
> --
> 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 subscrib...
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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/20110513/ceb64de5/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 May 13 09:10:50 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 21:10:50 +0800
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=GXXiWFDXkmdG2NembgM=j4goVVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <BANLkTinTEp_VBKTDy3f0UjqjF2DK-5s_DA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTiknai2cjwpc6KpXmxeC99tfQ9LFEw@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=GXXiWFDXkmdG2NembgM=j4goVVA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1BFE8BCD-806C-451D-A21C-0612D3D3A692@ciroap.org>

On 13/05/2011, at 8:50 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:

> Hi Jeremy, 
> 
> You can also include my name. Valeria Betancourt. 


All,

Thanks, but the idea is not to include individual IGC members as co-signatories, because it's an IGC statement so that would be redundant.  We are only interested in adding organisations as co-signatories.

Thanks for your understanding.

-- 
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/20110513/58b55d0f/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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Fri May 13 09:16:53 2011
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:16:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=GXXiWFDXkmdG2NembgM=j4goVVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<BANLkTinTEp_VBKTDy3f0UjqjF2DK-5s_DA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTiknai2cjwpc6KpXmxeC99tfQ9LFEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=GXXiWFDXkmdG2NembgM=j4goVVA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=wgE1kVnJsqXcWQd_Nw4Kk6Y8L-w@mail.gmail.com>

Kudos for timely action.

Sign me too

Aaron

On 5/13/11, Valeria Betancourt <valeriab at apc.org> wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> You can also include my name. Valeria Betancourt.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Valeria
>
> 2011/5/13 Sonigitu Ekpe <sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng>
>
>> Greetings, good work.
>> Include me.
>>
>> Kind regards.
>>
>> Sonigitu Ekpe
>>
>> On 13 May 2011 13:27, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 2011/5/13 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
>> >
>> > Please add my name
>>
>> mine too, didn't get around to hitting that link.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 subscrib...
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist-OutCome Mapper
C/o
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 13 09:21:43 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 18:51:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <1BFE8BCD-806C-451D-A21C-0612D3D3A692@ciroap.org>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <BANLkTinTEp_VBKTDy3f0UjqjF2DK-5s_DA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTiknai2cjwpc6KpXmxeC99tfQ9LFEw@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=GXXiWFDXkmdG2NembgM=j4goVVA@mail.gmail.com> <1BFE8BCD-806C-451D-A21C-0612D3D3A692@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4DCD3067.2070100@itforchange.net>

I understand that Valeria and others are just expressing support for the 
proposed letter, since they may have not been able to vote within the 
given time. And I think it is good to hear about more support than may 
have been listed in the poll.

I also think it is useful to give people a 24 hour warning of closing a 
poll. People often vote on the last warning :) .parminder

On Friday 13 May 2011 06:40 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 13/05/2011, at 8:50 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeremy,
>>
>> You can also include my name. Valeria Betancourt.
>
> All,
>
> Thanks, but the idea is not to include individual IGC members as 
> co-signatories, because it's an IGC statement so that would be 
> redundant.  We are only interested in adding organisations as 
> co-signatories.
>
> Thanks for your understanding.
>
> -- 
>
> *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 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/22c6bb42/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/22c6bb42/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From sdkaaa at gmail.com  Fri May 13 09:23:28 2011
From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 16:23:28 +0300
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <4DCD3067.2070100@itforchange.net>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <BANLkTinTEp_VBKTDy3f0UjqjF2DK-5s_DA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTiknai2cjwpc6KpXmxeC99tfQ9LFEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTi=GXXiWFDXkmdG2NembgM=j4goVVA@mail.gmail.com> <1BFE8BCD-806C-451D-A21C-0612D3D3A692@ciroap.org>
 <4DCD3067.2070100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikLj7sC7z7uNaVhas_NA7+U+n6hQw@mail.gmail.com>

True parminder, out of a crowded week, i voted few minutes ago...

All the best,
Bernard.
-
Bernard SADAKA
Mobile: +961 3 172377
Twitter: @sdkaaa
Website: http://evoliuvo.com
Email : sdkaaa at evoliuvo.com, sdkaaa at gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------
DiploFoundation Associate
Social Media & Remote Participation Consultant
BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer
Lebanon



On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:21 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  I understand that Valeria and others are just expressing support for the
> proposed letter, since they may have not been able to vote within the given
> time. And I think it is good to hear about more support than may have been
> listed in the poll.
>
> I also think it is useful to give people a 24 hour warning of closing a
> poll. People often vote on the last warning :) .parminder
>
> On Friday 13 May 2011 06:40 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>  On 13/05/2011, at 8:50 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> You can also include my name. Valeria Betancourt.
>
>
>  All,
>
>  Thanks, but the idea is not to include individual IGC members as
> co-signatories, because it's an IGC statement so that would be redundant.
>  We are only interested in adding organisations as co-signatories.
>
>  Thanks for your understanding.
>
>       --
>
> *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<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
> --
>
>  Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.net
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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/20110513/041f2917/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/041f2917/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From valeriab at apc.org  Fri May 13 09:32:39 2011
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 08:32:39 -0500
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <4DCD3067.2070100@itforchange.net>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <BANLkTinTEp_VBKTDy3f0UjqjF2DK-5s_DA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTiknai2cjwpc6KpXmxeC99tfQ9LFEw@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=GXXiWFDXkmdG2NembgM=j4goVVA@mail.gmail.com> <1BFE8BCD-806C-451D-A21C-0612D3D3A692@ciroap.org> <4DCD3067.2070100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CCD9A5BD-F631-458B-8614-3F6027052228@apc.org>

Dear Parminder,

In my case, I have reviewed the letter, share the concern it raises  
and agree with the request made. I support it. Otherwise, I would have  
not endorsed it.

Valeria

On 13/05/2011, at 8:21, parminder wrote:

> I understand that Valeria and others are just expressing support for  
> the proposed letter, since they may have not been able to vote  
> within the given time. And I think it is good to hear about more  
> support than may have been listed in the poll.
>
> I also think it is useful to give people a 24 hour warning of  
> closing a poll. People often vote on the last warning :) .parminder
>
> On Friday 13 May 2011 06:40 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> On 13/05/2011, at 8:50 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jeremy,
>>>
>>> You can also include my name. Valeria Betancourt.
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Thanks, but the idea is not to include individual IGC members as co- 
>> signatories, because it's an IGC statement so that would be  
>> redundant.  We are only interested in adding organisations as co- 
>> signatories.
>>
>> Thanks for your understanding.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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.
>>
>
> -- 
>
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.net
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
> <itfc_logo.png>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/34f56233/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 katitza at eff.org  Fri May 13 09:34:58 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 06:34:58 -0700
Subject: [governance] ACTION: IGC inputs to the civil society MAGs
 towards the next OC and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=eXNpbJk+uLE5ENf450-p+LA-8xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCC6F74.8060308@eff.org>	<4DCC7E80.5080300@paque.net>	<4DCC7FF2.4020909@eff.org> <BANLkTi=eXNpbJk+uLE5ENf450-p+LA-8xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DCD3382.4070003@eff.org>

Thanks Louis for chime in. Point taken.

I look forward to hearing others suggestions especially from those who 
follow the CSTD working group.
I haven't been following that discussion so I would appreciate any 
possible feedback.

Also any thoughts about the the main session re: Development. Time 
allocation, etc?

Many thanks. Very much appreciated,

Katitza

On 5/12/11 10:38 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org 
> <mailto:katitza at eff.org>> wrote:
> . . .
>
>
>      Funding for developing countries to attend IGF.
>
>
> This topic is a must. But it should be organized, promoted and run by 
> people from LDC's.
>
> The document below might provide some starting points:
> http://www.eurolinc.eu/spip.php?article72
>
> Best
>
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/c4e45715/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 May 13 09:41:06 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 19:11:06 +0530
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <CCD9A5BD-F631-458B-8614-3F6027052228@apc.org>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <BANLkTinTEp_VBKTDy3f0UjqjF2DK-5s_DA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTiknai2cjwpc6KpXmxeC99tfQ9LFEw@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=GXXiWFDXkmdG2NembgM=j4goVVA@mail.gmail.com> <1BFE8BCD-806C-451D-A21C-0612D3D3A692@ciroap.org> <4DCD3067.2070100@itforchange.net> <CCD9A5BD-F631-458B-8614-3F6027052228@apc.org>
Message-ID: <4DCD34F2.5000806@itforchange.net>



On Friday 13 May 2011 07:02 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
>
> In my case, I have reviewed the letter, share the concern it raises 
> and agree with the request made. I support it. Otherwise, I would have 
> not endorsed it.
>
> Valeria

Dear Valeria,

I never meant otherwise. You of course would have properly considered 
your endorsement. However, Jeremy responded to your endorsement email by 
saying that we are not taking individual co-signatories for the letter, 
and I wrote that I dont think you and others who came in with support 
after the poll was closed really want their names to be 'separately 
mentioned' as co-signatories (pl see Jeremy's eamil below) and were only 
expressing support as members of IGC. And this is because they may not 
have got time to vote within the allowed time period. I hope the 
misunderstanding is cleared now. parminder

>
> On 13/05/2011, at 8:21, parminder wrote:
>
>> I understand that Valeria and others are just expressing support for 
>> the proposed letter, since they may have not been able to vote within 
>> the given time. And I think it is good to hear about more support 
>> than may have been listed in the poll.
>>
>> I also think it is useful to give people a 24 hour warning of closing 
>> a poll. People often vote on the last warning :).parminder
>>
>> On Friday 13 May 2011 06:40 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2011, at 8:50 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jeremy,
>>>>
>>>> You can also include my name. Valeria Betancourt.
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Thanks, but the idea is not to include individual IGC members as 
>>> co-signatories, because it's an IGC statement so that would be 
>>> redundant.  We are only interested in adding organisations as 
>>> co-signatories.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your understanding.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> *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 
>>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
>>> print this email unless necessary.
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>> Executive Director
>> IT for Change
>> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
>> www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
>> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
>> <itfc_logo.png>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/928765ad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/928765ad/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From valeriab at apc.org  Fri May 13 09:50:02 2011
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 08:50:02 -0500
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <4DCD34F2.5000806@itforchange.net>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <BANLkTinTEp_VBKTDy3f0UjqjF2DK-5s_DA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTiknai2cjwpc6KpXmxeC99tfQ9LFEw@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=GXXiWFDXkmdG2NembgM=j4goVVA@mail.gmail.com> <1BFE8BCD-806C-451D-A21C-0612D3D3A692@ciroap.org> <4DCD3067.2070100@itforchange.net> <CCD9A5BD-F631-458B-8614-3F6027052228@apc.org> <4DCD34F2.5000806@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <2F033407-6C88-4199-8B04-C46E432475D8@apc.org>

Thanks for the clarification, Parminder.  You are right. The intention  
was to express support to the letter as members of the IGC.

Valeria

On 13/05/2011, at 8:41, parminder wrote:

>
>
> On Friday 13 May 2011 07:02 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>>
>> Dear Parminder,
>>
>> In my case, I have reviewed the letter, share the concern it raises  
>> and agree with the request made. I support it. Otherwise, I would  
>> have not endorsed it.
>>
>> Valeria
>
> Dear Valeria,
>
> I never meant otherwise. You of course would have properly  
> considered your endorsement. However, Jeremy responded to your  
> endorsement email by saying that we are not taking individual co- 
> signatories for the letter, and I wrote that I dont think you and  
> others who came in with support after the poll was closed really  
> want their names to be 'separately mentioned' as co-signatories (pl  
> see Jeremy's eamil below) and were only expressing support as  
> members of IGC. And this is because they may not have got time to  
> vote within the allowed time period. I hope the misunderstanding is  
> cleared now. parminder
>
>>
>> On 13/05/2011, at 8:21, parminder wrote:
>>
>>> I understand that Valeria and others are just expressing support  
>>> for the proposed letter, since they may have not been able to vote  
>>> within the given time. And I think it is good to hear about more  
>>> support than may have been listed in the poll.
>>>
>>> I also think it is useful to give people a 24 hour warning of  
>>> closing a poll. People often vote on the last warning :) .parminder
>>>
>>> On Friday 13 May 2011 06:40 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 13/05/2011, at 8:50 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jeremy,
>>>>>
>>>>> You can also include my name. Valeria Betancourt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, but the idea is not to include individual IGC members as  
>>>> co-signatories, because it's an IGC statement so that would be  
>>>> redundant.  We are only interested in adding organisations as co- 
>>>> signatories.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your understanding.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>>> Executive Director
>>> IT for Change
>>> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
>>> www.ITforChange.net
>>> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
>>> <itfc_logo.png>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
>
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.net
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
> <itfc_logo.png>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------
Valeria Betancourt
Directora / Manager
Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication  
and Information Policy Programme
Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
Progressive Communications, APC
http://www.apc.org





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/58bfcf9e/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 May 13 10:03:51 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 19:33:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <0D87F124-759B-4A79-BAC6-B7F3D7D341B1@uzh.ch>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA934B.6060908@itforchange.net> <0D87F124-759B-4A79-BAC6-B7F3D7D341B1@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <4DCD3A47.6030801@itforchange.net>

Bill

On Wednesday 11 May 2011 09:43 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Parminder
>
>
>> In fact it is unfortunate how those opposed to strengthening the 
>> policy role of the IGF have linked IGF recs necessarily to UN style 
>> formal negotiations. Since there cannot be such negotiations at the 
>> IGF, there cant be recs by the IGF - their simple but deliberately 
>> fallacious logic.
>
> Yes there are a lot of actors who anticipate, based on WSIS and the 
> wider history of global governance, that reconciling highly diverse 
> views and preferences would require formal negotiations.  Aside from 
> hoping that working groups could do things in a more rational and 
> effective way, or proposing loose sense of the room messages, what 
> have we offered them in the way of other models to work with?  How 
> might one architect a collaborative process that sidestepped the kinds 
> of dynamics they fear?  I don't think we (IGC, CS) have really 
> contributed much out of the box thinking on this that would provide 
> much basis for concerned parties to unclench, and meanwhile whenever 
> governments speak to the matter they throw it back into the 
> intergovernmental negotiation frame, not so helpful.

India had a detailed proposal for such IGF outcomes at the CSTD WG, 
which was supported by most developing countries. And it not a throw 
back to an inter-gov negotiation framework. It is very much 
multistakeholder, with going into good detail on how multistakeholder 
participation should be structured to make it more representative. What 
are your views on that proposal.


> So we end up with polarization and immobility.  It's reminiscent of 
> the situation circa 1994 with the definition of IG, it took orthogonal 
> third way thinking from CS to uncork the thing.  We haven't done the 
> same on "outcomes."

Give us your take on it. Many of us have been trying to suggest ways to 
do it all these years. But if you think these attempts have not been 
good enough, why dont you suggest something. Esp since you seem to 
convey here that this is indeed an important thing to do.

>>> *
>>> *
>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from 
>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events 
>>> in which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not 
>>> been fully vetted with counterpart countries.  In this context, it'd 
>>> be surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being 
>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled.
>>
>> We think there will be, and we are afraid of that and are opposing 
>> their non-inclusive nature. As is suggested from your earlier 
>> examples of the Okinawa summit, these recs are likely to have a 
>> powerful influence on what gets decided and announced by the G 8 
>> meeting, which is likely to have a powerfu linflcuence on the future 
>> of global IG. I am not clear why does this not bother you.
>
> You'd be a lot clearer if you eschewed misreading things into what I 
> say.  I didn't say it doesn't bother me, it does.  All I said was 
> holding up IGF's dysfunctional non-decision making model as a solution 
> to the need for multistakeholder decision making seemed odd.

I said 'why doesnt it bother you' as a rhetoric. Ok, maybe 'does it not 
bother you' would have served the rhetoric purpose. But I am indeed 
amazed that if the IGF model is not even the right model for you for a 
policy consultative process, which eG8 is supposed to be, what is the 
IGF to you. I think most of us agree that it is not a policy making 
forum. Then what is its purpose/ function for you? A global conference 
on IG? A chat-space? Just curious to know.

Parminder


>>
>>>  And if so, then the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should 
>>> follow, no?
>>
>> We see IGF as a public participation/ consultation model for Internet 
>> policy making, and thus we think that its model should be used for 
>> all forums that are supposed to input public opinion (or that of all 
>> stakeholders) into formal policy making processes.
>
> Can't you separate the issues of participation rights and decision 
> making procedures?  IGF's great for the former, has bupkis for the latter.
>
> We're actually more or less on the same page, even if you refuse to 
> accept it…I just think we need to have serious discussions about 
> alternative decision making/consensus building modalities.  That's 
> part of why I'm doing workshops on institutional design and choice.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/d791f450/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/d791f450/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Fri May 13 10:24:10 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 07:24:10 -0700
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
  proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <p06240820c9f2d2db2d12@[192.168.1.160]>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <p0624081ac9f2b4da24c9@192.168.1.160> <BANLkTi=JZFRjN+=kXkTQnL=D1WcZVuVQPw@mail.gmail.com> <p06240820c9f2d2db2d12@[192.168.1.160]>
Message-ID: <4DCD3F0A.4090602@eff.org>

Hi there,

I haven't seen threats. I have seen lot of passionate people trying to 
provide feedback in "real time"
during the MAG meeting to MAG members (and getting annoy if someone A, B 
or C does not take into account that suggestion).

There are several problems.

a. Many non MAG members are learning about how the MAG meetings works 
from the inside. Since all these are new tactics, many of them are not 
aware of the dynamic or how civil society MAGs (at least those who are 
active) coordinate, call for consensus, among them, etc.

b. MAGs members has not been reaching out to members to collect 
feedback. Therefore all the feedback come in during the meeting. This 
was my experience the last meeting that I wasn't able to attend (due to 
lack of funding) but join the discussion online. I observed how the 
dynamics played, and how people start arguing among themselves instead 
of focusing on the meeting (using very high-tone/passionate words).

c. I do believe that if we want to improve our self as a group, MAGs 
members need to reach out to IGC members before the meeting. Get all the 
feedback as much as we can. Sort out difference before the meeting as 
much as we can.

d. MAGs members should prepare and read all the materials that will be 
part of the discussion during the meeting. Observers (who will be in 
Geneva) should do the same so everyone should start with the same 
knowledge and we can build upon it. meetings are quite quickly.

IMPORTANT: Please IGC members should review NOW the main IGC program, 
see if they like how the main themes are structure (ie: Is people OK 
with the Development session, one of the most controversial main 
sessions in the program). Do IGC members have any suggestion? Is there 
any special point we should bring into the table?  Should we fight for 
observers to speak in the meeting? What happen if there are more 
observers from the business sector than civil society? By doing so: Do 
we break the weak balance we have among civil society reps, business 
sector, technical community on the MAG?

Let's focus on the next week meeting so we can sort out our difference 
as much as we can before the meeting.

That is my suggestion, Katitza




On 5/13/11 5:30 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
> More important, it would be good to know of the nature of the threats 
> you experienced during the MAG meetings.

-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Fri May 13 10:34:06 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 07:34:06 -0700
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
  proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <4DCD3F0A.4090602@eff.org>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <p0624081ac9f2b4da24c9@192.168.1.160> <BANLkTi=JZFRjN+=kXkTQnL=D1WcZVuVQPw@mail.gmail.com> <p06240820c9f2d2db2d12@[192.168.1.160]> <4DCD3F0A.4090602@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DCD415E.2000800@eff.org>

One more thing: Ginger has kindly agreed to help MAGs members to 
summarize any contribution that can arrive through twitter or in this 
list even during the next OC and MAG meeting. At least for me, it is 
quite important to have support from her. I am sure that she will 
monitor the list and twitter, channelize their comments with calm to 
MAGs members, and do a good job monitoring the list and twitter.


On 5/13/11 7:24 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I haven't seen threats. I have seen lot of passionate people trying to 
> provide feedback in "real time"
> during the MAG meeting to MAG members (and getting annoy if someone A, 
> B or C does not take into account that suggestion).
>
> There are several problems.
>
> a. Many non MAG members are learning about how the MAG meetings works 
> from the inside. Since all these are new tactics, many of them are not 
> aware of the dynamic or how civil society MAGs (at least those who are 
> active) coordinate, call for consensus, among them, etc.
>
> b. MAGs members has not been reaching out to members to collect 
> feedback. Therefore all the feedback come in during the meeting. This 
> was my experience the last meeting that I wasn't able to attend (due 
> to lack of funding) but join the discussion online. I observed how the 
> dynamics played, and how people start arguing among themselves instead 
> of focusing on the meeting (using very high-tone/passionate words).
>
> c. I do believe that if we want to improve our self as a group, MAGs 
> members need to reach out to IGC members before the meeting. Get all 
> the feedback as much as we can. Sort out difference before the meeting 
> as much as we can.
>
> d. MAGs members should prepare and read all the materials that will be 
> part of the discussion during the meeting. Observers (who will be in 
> Geneva) should do the same so everyone should start with the same 
> knowledge and we can build upon it. meetings are quite quickly.
>
> IMPORTANT: Please IGC members should review NOW the main IGC program, 
> see if they like how the main themes are structure (ie: Is people OK 
> with the Development session, one of the most controversial main 
> sessions in the program). Do IGC members have any suggestion? Is there 
> any special point we should bring into the table?  Should we fight for 
> observers to speak in the meeting? What happen if there are more 
> observers from the business sector than civil society? By doing so: Do 
> we break the weak balance we have among civil society reps, business 
> sector, technical community on the MAG?
>
> Let's focus on the next week meeting so we can sort out our difference 
> as much as we can before the meeting.
>
> That is my suggestion, Katitza
>
>
>
>
> On 5/13/11 5:30 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>> More important, it would be good to know of the nature of the threats 
>> you experienced during the MAG meetings.
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 13 10:36:10 2011
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:36:10 -0500
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
  proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <4DCD415E.2000800@eff.org>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <p0624081ac9f2b4da24c9@192.168.1.160> <BANLkTi=JZFRjN+=kXkTQnL=D1WcZVuVQPw@mail.gmail.com> <p06240820c9f2d2db2d12@[192.168.1.160]> <4DCD3F0A.4090602@eff.org> <4DCD415E.2000800@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DCD41DA.2000302@paque.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/f0e9dcab/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 katitza at eff.org  Fri May 13 10:36:40 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 07:36:40 -0700
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
  proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <4DCD41DA.2000302@paque.net>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <p0624081ac9f2b4da24c9@192.168.1.160> <BANLkTi=JZFRjN+=kXkTQnL=D1WcZVuVQPw@mail.gmail.com> <p06240820c9f2d2db2d12@[192.168.1.160]> <4DCD3F0A.4090602@eff.org> <4DCD415E.2000800@eff.org> <4DCD41DA.2000302@paque.net>
Message-ID: <4DCD41F8.3070700@eff.org>

#igf11

On 5/13/11 7:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:
> Kati, if suggestions will come in on Twitter, what hashtag should be used?
>
> On 5/13/2011 9:34 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>> One more thing: Ginger has kindly agreed to help MAGs members to 
>> summarize any contribution that can arrive through twitter or in this 
>> list even during the next OC and MAG meeting. At least for me, it is 
>> quite important to have support from her. I am sure that she will 
>> monitor the list and twitter, channelize their comments with calm to 
>> MAGs members, and do a good job monitoring the list and twitter.
>>
>>
>> On 5/13/11 7:24 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> I haven't seen threats. I have seen lot of passionate people trying 
>>> to provide feedback in "real time"
>>> during the MAG meeting to MAG members (and getting annoy if someone 
>>> A, B or C does not take into account that suggestion).
>>>
>>> There are several problems.
>>>
>>> a. Many non MAG members are learning about how the MAG meetings 
>>> works from the inside. Since all these are new tactics, many of them 
>>> are not aware of the dynamic or how civil society MAGs (at least 
>>> those who are active) coordinate, call for consensus, among them, etc.
>>>
>>> b. MAGs members has not been reaching out to members to collect 
>>> feedback. Therefore all the feedback come in during the meeting. 
>>> This was my experience the last meeting that I wasn't able to attend 
>>> (due to lack of funding) but join the discussion online. I observed 
>>> how the dynamics played, and how people start arguing among 
>>> themselves instead of focusing on the meeting (using very 
>>> high-tone/passionate words).
>>>
>>> c. I do believe that if we want to improve our self as a group, MAGs 
>>> members need to reach out to IGC members before the meeting. Get all 
>>> the feedback as much as we can. Sort out difference before the 
>>> meeting as much as we can.
>>>
>>> d. MAGs members should prepare and read all the materials that will 
>>> be part of the discussion during the meeting. Observers (who will be 
>>> in Geneva) should do the same so everyone should start with the same 
>>> knowledge and we can build upon it. meetings are quite quickly.
>>>
>>> IMPORTANT: Please IGC members should review NOW the main IGC 
>>> program, see if they like how the main themes are structure (ie: Is 
>>> people OK with the Development session, one of the most 
>>> controversial main sessions in the program). Do IGC members have any 
>>> suggestion? Is there any special point we should bring into the 
>>> table?  Should we fight for observers to speak in the meeting? What 
>>> happen if there are more observers from the business sector than 
>>> civil society? By doing so: Do we break the weak balance we have 
>>> among civil society reps, business sector, technical community on 
>>> the MAG?
>>>
>>> Let's focus on the next week meeting so we can sort out our 
>>> difference as much as we can before the meeting.
>>>
>>> That is my suggestion, Katitza
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/13/11 5:30 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>> More important, it would be good to know of the nature of the 
>>>> threats you experienced during the MAG meetings.
>>>
>>
>>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/68002169/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 May 13 10:43:46 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 16:43:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <p06240820c9f2d2db2d12@192.168.1.160>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com>
	<p0624081ac9f2b4da24c9@192.168.1.160>
	<BANLkTi=JZFRjN+=kXkTQnL=D1WcZVuVQPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<p06240820c9f2d2db2d12@192.168.1.160>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=-K4Q38oyp-iKfrdosyUP8f4gaVA@mail.gmail.com>

McTim, threats don't happen on public record. They are made by reps of
other stakeholder groups trying to create fear usually targeted to
come to play in the country I come from.

These have been made on issues like but not limited to ICANN,
Information intermediary workshops, critical internet resources issues
with regards to my country etc.

I won't be sharing these in much more detail in public since the shame
is on me and I am very sensitive.

-- FoO

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> Fouad, how long have you been a MAG member?
>
> More important, it would be good to know of the nature of the threats you
> experienced during the MAG meetings.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> At 1:58 PM +0200 5/13/11, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>>
>> I believe its misunderstanding the text here.
>>
>> I did not blame the coordinators, I said the steps required to ensure
>> that IGC communicates during open consultations and MAG meetings. Its
>> a coordinator effort.
>>
>> Sensitive is a good aspect as it enables realization and
>> understanding. Sensitivity to issues and situations is a very humane
>> activity and characteristic.
>>
>> I do feel sad when alumnus MAG members do not share their knowledge or
>> gather existing MAG members and work with them on formulating strategy
>> and countering the attacks that happen.
>>
>> Its easy to point fingers but not easy to make things happen and it
>> does take a certain sensitive mindset to make things happen.
>>
>> Thanks for identifying the sensitivity in my nature.
>>
>> Fouad
>>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Fouad, a shame you have taken such offence.  I do know what it's like to
>>> be
>>
>>  > criticized... I was a MAG member and coordinator for a couple of years.
>> But
>>  > you are very sensitive. And blaming the coordinators makes no sense,
>> just do
>>>
>>>  your part.
>>>
>>>  More important though is something you say at the end of your long
>>> email:
>>>
>>>
>>>>  I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and
>>>> it
>>>>  does hold value.
>>>
>>>  Threats of what kind?  Doesn't sound good at all.  Please explain.
>>>
>>>
>>>  As for the rest, hope all the MAG members will remember what they said
>>> when
>>>  taking part in the nominating process and having names put forward for
>>> the
>>>  MAG.  Not clear what any does anymore.
>>>
>>>  Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>  Kindly accept my apologies in advance for being direct as this is
>>>>  upsetting.
>>>>
>>>>  Adam that would be arguable. I appreciate your coming back at me as if
>>>> I
>>>>  or our MAG members may be faulty. I have never received a single
>>>> response to
>>>>  my requests to the list when I requested for input. this happened in
>>>> 2009,
>>>>  2010 and now fingers being pointed in 2011 which is upsetting.
>>>>
>>>>  At my end, i have taken IGC statements to the MAG meetings and
>>>> attempted
>>>>  to the best of my knowledge. I have run after IGC members present
>>>> taking
>>>>  ongoing advice on issues. Ginger, Parminder, Anriyette, Jovan, Ian,
>>>>  Bertrand, Miguel, George, Qusai, Marillia, Bill and the list goes on
>>>> have
>>>>  all been very kind and helping.
>>>>
>>>>  For the first time in 3 years you interacted with me in the last mag
>>>>  meeting on issues of participation. Sorry to say Avri has been right in
>>>> many
>>
>>  >> circumstances and so has Parminder that IGC does lack coordination. It
>> is
>>>>
>>>>  not time to point fingers but to help work out and strategize for the
>>>>  upcoming meeting.
>>>>
>>>>  People here come from various organizations and backgrounds. In my case
>>>>  the developing state is my major concern and the continuous death and
>>>> human
>>>>  right violation issues associated with Internet policy are the biggest
>>>> to
>>>>  threat to me, my citizenry and many others in the developing world.
>>>>
>>>>  I have witnessed that there is more interest in being part of mag by
>>>> many
>>>>  then to actually tackle the issues relevant to IG. We have to get our
>>>> act
>>>>  straight otherwise this is not belong us.
>>>>
>>>>  Where is IGC's MAG working group thread or discussions, why haven't the
>>
>>  >> coordinators ever initiated such a thing? Why isn't there a skype
>> discussion
>>>>
>>>>  group for Igc in open consultations and mag? Why aren't we coordinated
>>>>  whereas we take so much time to relate and repeat histories of policy
>>
>>  >> institutions and arrangements.
>>>>
>>>>  I hear you Adam but you do have the senior experience and exposure to
>>>> help
>>>>  us from developing countries, work with us and support advice sharing
>>>> for
>>>>  open consultations and mag meetings. Being cynical is fine but really I
>>>> get
>>>>  upset with all my developed country CS peers to be arguing on issues of
>>
>>  >> least relevance to the developing world and more on history and
>>>>
>>>>  Process theory.
>>>>
>>>>  If we can't be helped by you then don't ridicule us especially when we
>>>> are
>>>>  a victim of our own severe life threatening situations and still
>>>> struggling.
>>>>  I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and
>>>> it
>>>>  does hold value.
>>>>
>>>>  I wish you and many others would be more understanding.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Fouad Bajwa
>>>>  sent using my iPad
>>>>
>>>>  On 12 May 2011, at 05:58 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   I will be going to the meetings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   We have the workshop scoring activity underway already and it ends
>>>>>> at
>>>>>>   the end of this week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   I am focusing on IG4D Workshops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   IGC really needs to work with its MAG representatives on issues of
>>>>>>  interest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   You have that the wrong way round.
>>>>>
>>>>   > MAG representatives really need to work with the IGC.
>>>>>
>>>>>   When nominated everyone made promises to consult, inform, etc.  It's
>>>>>   not been happening.
>>>>>
>>>>>   Adam
>>>>>   '
>>>>>
>>>>>>   Sorry for the short reply...travelling.....!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Fouad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM,  <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   >>> I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for
>>>> the
>>>>  MAG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I
>>>>>>>  will be
>>>>>>>   working in the SOP workshops.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   If there are other workshops that are well done (ie touching the
>>>>>>> key
>>>>>>>  and hot
>>>>>>>   policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>  miss
>>>>>>>   it! Katitza.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   ________________________________
>>>>>>>   From: katitza at eff.org
>>>>>>>   Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>>   Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
>>>>>>>   To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia
>>>>>>>  Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>;
>>>>>>>   Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>>>   ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
>>>>>>>   Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
>>>>>>>   Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>>>>>>   Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC
>>>>>>>  support). I
>>>>>>>   will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>  the
>>>>>>>   last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I
>>>>>>>  should
>>>>>>>   make sure to defend, please let me know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   All the best, Katitza.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   ________________________________
>>>>>>>   From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>   Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>>   Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
>>>>>>>   To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>>>   ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel
>>>>>>>  <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>   Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
>>>>>>> Indian
>>>>>>>   proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe
>>>>>>>  that our
>>>>>>>   main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
>>>>>>>   proposal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>  a
>>>>>>>   revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner
>>>>>>>  without
>>>>>>>   reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural
>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>  (ex:
>>>>>>>   CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two
>>>>>>>  potential
>>>>>>>   shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the
>>>>>>> business
>>>>>>>  sector
>>>>>>>   and the technical community, in my view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal
>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>   starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate
>>>>>>>  ideas,
>>>>>>>   reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt
>>>>>>> IGF¹s
>>>>>>>  closet
>>>>>>>   for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a
>>>>>>> longer
>>
>>  >>>>>  workshop, with half of it dedicated to a ³setting the scene² and
>> an
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  overview
>>>>>>>   of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>  the
>>>>>>>   proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be
>>>>>>>  dedicated to
>>>>>>>   focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don¹t know if
>>>>>>>  that
>>>>>>>   would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this
>>>>>>>  would be
>>>>>>>   in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move
>>>>>>>  driven by
>>>>>>>   political considerations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other
>>>>>>>  groups
>>>>>>>   will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
>>>>>>>   non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several
>>>>>>>  IGF
>>>>>>>   workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can¹t be 2 or 3 workshops
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>  IGF
>>>>>>>   improvement?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Marília
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our
>>>>>>>>>>>  workshop,
>>>>>>>>>>>   "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".
>>>>>>>>>>>  Instead,
>>>>>>>>>>>   they
>>>>>>>>>>>   responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and
>>>>>>>>>>>   suggesting
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   that the three be merged.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
>>>>
>>>>   >>>>>> desires of Marilia and yourself?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>   have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
>>>>>>>>>   teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic
>>>>>>>>>  dialogue",
>>>>>>>>>   "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as
>>>>>>>>> opposed
>>>>>>>>>  to
>>>>>>>>>   the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how
>>>>>>>>>  much
>>>>>>>>>   more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is
>>>>>>>>>  not
>>>>>>>>>   difficult to speculate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and
>>>>>>>> general
>>>>>>>>   debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd
>>>>>>>> strongly
>>>>>>>>   support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>   you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>   the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>   approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take
>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>>   at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>   other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>   non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing
>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>   with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a
>>>>>>>> broad
>>>>>>>>   debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   Greetings,
>>>>>>>>   Norbert
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From ofdral at gmail.com  Fri May 13 11:11:36 2011
From: ofdral at gmail.com (Dan Ofori)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:11:36 +0000
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <2F033407-6C88-4199-8B04-C46E432475D8@apc.org>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<BANLkTinTEp_VBKTDy3f0UjqjF2DK-5s_DA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTiknai2cjwpc6KpXmxeC99tfQ9LFEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=GXXiWFDXkmdG2NembgM=j4goVVA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1BFE8BCD-806C-451D-A21C-0612D3D3A692@ciroap.org>
	<4DCD3067.2070100@itforchange.net>
	<CCD9A5BD-F631-458B-8614-3F6027052228@apc.org>
	<4DCD34F2.5000806@itforchange.net>
	<2F033407-6C88-4199-8B04-C46E432475D8@apc.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=PK8ZE0dB2S6Yh1E_xEkp=KUpbMw@mail.gmail.com>

Please include my name

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Valeria Betancourt <valeriab at apc.org>wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification, Parminder.  You are right. The intention was
> to express support to the letter as members of the IGC.
>
> Valeria
>
> On 13/05/2011, at 8:41, parminder wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday 13 May 2011 07:02 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>
> Dear Parminder,
>
> In my case, I have reviewed the letter, share the concern it raises and
> agree with the request made. I support it. Otherwise, I would have not
> endorsed it.
>
> Valeria
>
>
> Dear Valeria,
>
> I never meant otherwise. You of course would have properly considered your
> endorsement. However, Jeremy responded to your endorsement email by saying
> that we are not taking individual co-signatories for the letter, and I wrote
> that I dont think you and others who came in with support after the poll was
> closed really want their names to be 'separately mentioned' as
> co-signatories (pl see Jeremy's eamil below) and were only expressing
> support as members of IGC. And this is because they may not have got time to
> vote within the allowed time period. I hope the misunderstanding is cleared
> now. parminder
>
>
> On 13/05/2011, at 8:21, parminder wrote:
>
> I understand that Valeria and others are just expressing support for the
> proposed letter, since they may have not been able to vote within the given
> time. And I think it is good to hear about more support than may have been
> listed in the poll.
>
> I also think it is useful to give people a 24 hour warning of closing a
> poll. People often vote on the last warning :) .parminder
>
> On Friday 13 May 2011 06:40 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On 13/05/2011, at 8:50 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> You can also include my name. Valeria Betancourt.
>
>
> All,
>
> Thanks, but the idea is not to include individual IGC members as
> co-signatories, because it's an IGC statement so that would be redundant.
>  We are only interested in adding organisations as co-signatories.
>
> Thanks for your understanding.
>
> --
>
> *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<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
> --
>
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.net
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
> <itfc_logo.png>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.net
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
> <itfc_logo.png>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> -------------
> Valeria Betancourt
> Directora / Manager
> Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and
> Information Policy Programme
> Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
> Progressive Communications, APC
> http://www.apc.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Ofori
Accra,Ghana
(T:)+233-244-730989
(E:) ofdral at gmail.com
skype: ofdral
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/ec48fb63/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 acm.org  Fri May 13 11:24:45 2011
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 11:24:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=-K4Q38oyp-iKfrdosyUP8f4gaVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <p0624081ac9f2b4da24c9@192.168.1.160> <BANLkTi=JZFRjN+=kXkTQnL=D1WcZVuVQPw@mail.gmail.com> <p06240820c9f2d2db2d12@192.168.1.160> <BANLkTi=-K4Q38oyp-iKfrdosyUP8f4gaVA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9432083A-2363-41EF-A3EB-7D3F5B6AFCB2@acm.org>

Hi Fouad,

I understand you not speaking on the substance of the threats on a public list.

But I do not believe the shame is on you.  It is on those who threaten.  And it is something that the IGC should find a way to help you with given that you are one of ours.  Perhaps if you talk to the Coordinators or others in Geneva confidentially, something can be figured out.

a.



On 13 May 2011, at 10:43, Fouad Bajwa wrote:

> McTim, threats don't happen on public record. They are made by reps of
> other stakeholder groups trying to create fear usually targeted to
> come to play in the country I come from.
> 
> These have been made on issues like but not limited to ICANN,
> Information intermediary workshops, critical internet resources issues
> with regards to my country etc.
> 
> I won't be sharing these in much more detail in public since the shame
> is on me and I am very sensitive.
> 
> -- FoO
> 
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>> Fouad, how long have you been a MAG member?
>> 
>> More important, it would be good to know of the nature of the threats you
>> experienced during the MAG meetings.
>> 
>> Adam
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 1:58 PM +0200 5/13/11, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>>> 
>>> I believe its misunderstanding the text here.
>>> 
>>> I did not blame the coordinators, I said the steps required to ensure
>>> that IGC communicates during open consultations and MAG meetings. Its
>>> a coordinator effort.
>>> 
>>> Sensitive is a good aspect as it enables realization and
>>> understanding. Sensitivity to issues and situations is a very humane
>>> activity and characteristic.
>>> 
>>> I do feel sad when alumnus MAG members do not share their knowledge or
>>> gather existing MAG members and work with them on formulating strategy
>>> and countering the attacks that happen.
>>> 
>>> Its easy to point fingers but not easy to make things happen and it
>>> does take a certain sensitive mindset to make things happen.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for identifying the sensitivity in my nature.
>>> 
>>> Fouad
>>> 
>>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>  Fouad, a shame you have taken such offence.  I do know what it's like to
>>>> be
>>> 
>>>  > criticized... I was a MAG member and coordinator for a couple of years.
>>> But
>>>  > you are very sensitive. And blaming the coordinators makes no sense,
>>> just do
>>>> 
>>>>  your part.
>>>> 
>>>>  More important though is something you say at the end of your long
>>>> email:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>  I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and
>>>>> it
>>>>>  does hold value.
>>>> 
>>>>  Threats of what kind?  Doesn't sound good at all.  Please explain.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  As for the rest, hope all the MAG members will remember what they said
>>>> when
>>>>  taking part in the nominating process and having names put forward for
>>>> the
>>>>  MAG.  Not clear what any does anymore.
>>>> 
>>>>  Adam
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>  Kindly accept my apologies in advance for being direct as this is
>>>>>  upsetting.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Adam that would be arguable. I appreciate your coming back at me as if
>>>>> I
>>>>>  or our MAG members may be faulty. I have never received a single
>>>>> response to
>>>>>  my requests to the list when I requested for input. this happened in
>>>>> 2009,
>>>>>  2010 and now fingers being pointed in 2011 which is upsetting.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  At my end, i have taken IGC statements to the MAG meetings and
>>>>> attempted
>>>>>  to the best of my knowledge. I have run after IGC members present
>>>>> taking
>>>>>  ongoing advice on issues. Ginger, Parminder, Anriyette, Jovan, Ian,
>>>>>  Bertrand, Miguel, George, Qusai, Marillia, Bill and the list goes on
>>>>> have
>>>>>  all been very kind and helping.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  For the first time in 3 years you interacted with me in the last mag
>>>>>  meeting on issues of participation. Sorry to say Avri has been right in
>>>>> many
>>> 
>>>  >> circumstances and so has Parminder that IGC does lack coordination. It
>>> is
>>>>> 
>>>>>  not time to point fingers but to help work out and strategize for the
>>>>>  upcoming meeting.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  People here come from various organizations and backgrounds. In my case
>>>>>  the developing state is my major concern and the continuous death and
>>>>> human
>>>>>  right violation issues associated with Internet policy are the biggest
>>>>> to
>>>>>  threat to me, my citizenry and many others in the developing world.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  I have witnessed that there is more interest in being part of mag by
>>>>> many
>>>>>  then to actually tackle the issues relevant to IG. We have to get our
>>>>> act
>>>>>  straight otherwise this is not belong us.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Where is IGC's MAG working group thread or discussions, why haven't the
>>> 
>>>  >> coordinators ever initiated such a thing? Why isn't there a skype
>>> discussion
>>>>> 
>>>>>  group for Igc in open consultations and mag? Why aren't we coordinated
>>>>>  whereas we take so much time to relate and repeat histories of policy
>>> 
>>>  >> institutions and arrangements.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  I hear you Adam but you do have the senior experience and exposure to
>>>>> help
>>>>>  us from developing countries, work with us and support advice sharing
>>>>> for
>>>>>  open consultations and mag meetings. Being cynical is fine but really I
>>>>> get
>>>>>  upset with all my developed country CS peers to be arguing on issues of
>>> 
>>>  >> least relevance to the developing world and more on history and
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Process theory.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  If we can't be helped by you then don't ridicule us especially when we
>>>>> are
>>>>>  a victim of our own severe life threatening situations and still
>>>>> struggling.
>>>>>  I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and
>>>>> it
>>>>>  does hold value.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  I wish you and many others would be more understanding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Fouad Bajwa
>>>>>  sent using my iPad
>>>>> 
>>>>>  On 12 May 2011, at 05:58 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>   On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   I will be going to the meetings.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   We have the workshop scoring activity underway already and it ends
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>   the end of this week.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   I am focusing on IG4D Workshops.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   IGC really needs to work with its MAG representatives on issues of
>>>>>>>  interest.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   You have that the wrong way round.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>   > MAG representatives really need to work with the IGC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   When nominated everyone made promises to consult, inform, etc.  It's
>>>>>>   not been happening.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   Adam
>>>>>>   '
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   Sorry for the short reply...travelling.....!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   Fouad
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM,  <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   >>> I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for
>>>>> the
>>>>>  MAG.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I
>>>>>>>>  will be
>>>>>>>>   working in the SOP workshops.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   If there are other workshops that are well done (ie touching the
>>>>>>>> key
>>>>>>>>  and hot
>>>>>>>>   policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>  miss
>>>>>>>>   it! Katitza.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   ________________________________
>>>>>>>>   From: katitza at eff.org
>>>>>>>>   Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>>>   Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
>>>>>>>>   To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia
>>>>>>>>  Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>;
>>>>>>>>   Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>>>>   ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
>>>>>>>>   Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
>>>>>>>>   Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>>>>>>>   Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC
>>>>>>>>  support). I
>>>>>>>>   will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>  the
>>>>>>>>   last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I
>>>>>>>>  should
>>>>>>>>   make sure to defend, please let me know.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   All the best, Katitza.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   ________________________________
>>>>>>>>   From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>   Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>>>   Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
>>>>>>>>   To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>>>>   ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel
>>>>>>>>  <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>   Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
>>>>>>>> Indian
>>>>>>>>   proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe
>>>>>>>>  that our
>>>>>>>>   main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
>>>>>>>>   proposal.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>  a
>>>>>>>>   revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner
>>>>>>>>  without
>>>>>>>>   reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural
>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>  (ex:
>>>>>>>>   CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two
>>>>>>>>  potential
>>>>>>>>   shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the
>>>>>>>> business
>>>>>>>>  sector
>>>>>>>>   and the technical community, in my view.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal
>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>   starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate
>>>>>>>>  ideas,
>>>>>>>>   reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt
>>>>>>>> IGF¹s
>>>>>>>>  closet
>>>>>>>>   for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a
>>>>>>>> longer
>>> 
>>>  >>>>>  workshop, with half of it dedicated to a ³setting the scene² and
>>> an
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  overview
>>>>>>>>   of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>  the
>>>>>>>>   proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be
>>>>>>>>  dedicated to
>>>>>>>>   focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don¹t know if
>>>>>>>>  that
>>>>>>>>   would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this
>>>>>>>>  would be
>>>>>>>>   in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move
>>>>>>>>  driven by
>>>>>>>>   political considerations.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other
>>>>>>>>  groups
>>>>>>>>   will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
>>>>>>>>   non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several
>>>>>>>>  IGF
>>>>>>>>   workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can¹t be 2 or 3 workshops
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>  IGF
>>>>>>>>   improvement?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   Best,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   Marília
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>   Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>   On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>   Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>   The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our
>>>>>>>>>>>>  workshop,
>>>>>>>>>>>>   "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".
>>>>>>>>>>>>  Instead,
>>>>>>>>>>>>   they
>>>>>>>>>>>>   responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and
>>>>>>>>>>>>   suggesting
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>   that the three be merged.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>   Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>   How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
>>>>> 
>>>>>   >>>>>> desires of Marilia and yourself?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>   A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>   have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
>>>>>>>>>>   teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic
>>>>>>>>>>  dialogue",
>>>>>>>>>>   "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as
>>>>>>>>>> opposed
>>>>>>>>>>  to
>>>>>>>>>>   the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how
>>>>>>>>>>  much
>>>>>>>>>>   more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is
>>>>>>>>>>  not
>>>>>>>>>>   difficult to speculate.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>   Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and
>>>>>>>>> general
>>>>>>>>>   debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd
>>>>>>>>> strongly
>>>>>>>>>   support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>   you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>   the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>   approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take
>>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>>>   at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>   other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>   non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing
>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>   with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a
>>>>>>>>> broad
>>>>>>>>>   debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>   Greetings,
>>>>>>>>>   Norbert
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 13 11:38:59 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 17:38:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <9432083A-2363-41EF-A3EB-7D3F5B6AFCB2@acm.org>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com>
	<p0624081ac9f2b4da24c9@192.168.1.160>
	<BANLkTi=JZFRjN+=kXkTQnL=D1WcZVuVQPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<p06240820c9f2d2db2d12@192.168.1.160>
	<BANLkTi=-K4Q38oyp-iKfrdosyUP8f4gaVA@mail.gmail.com>
	<9432083A-2363-41EF-A3EB-7D3F5B6AFCB2@acm.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTik9aCfz_XS5Q3LZN0UQqcM_PDOu_A@mail.gmail.com>

True Avri, one thing i can share though separately is that on freedom
of expression issues, i won't name the country but i was offered
support and someone shared what their govt supported to help FoE
issues and threats in the form of asylum etc, so there is support but
I also need to continue to do what i do because there is not guarantee
that there are many like me from my region. I do try to share in light
terms with my friends and so forth within the IGF circle but there is
only little that i can share. The funny thing is that i even got a
threat of legal action and defaming of someone's client in pakistan at
the ICANN sfo meeting so its now a spill out affect :o)

I went to icann meetings in the first place after the icann related
threat in igf consultations and now its happening there too. Maybe
something is wrong with me in the end.

- FoO

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi Fouad,
>
> I understand you not speaking on the substance of the threats on a public list.
>
> But I do not believe the shame is on you.  It is on those who threaten.  And it is something that the IGC should find a way to help you with given that you are one of ours.  Perhaps if you talk to the Coordinators or others in Geneva confidentially, something can be figured out.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 13 May 2011, at 10:43, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>
>> McTim, threats don't happen on public record. They are made by reps of
>> other stakeholder groups trying to create fear usually targeted to
>> come to play in the country I come from.
>>
>> These have been made on issues like but not limited to ICANN,
>> Information intermediary workshops, critical internet resources issues
>> with regards to my country etc.
>>
>> I won't be sharing these in much more detail in public since the shame
>> is on me and I am very sensitive.
>>
>> -- FoO
>>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>> Fouad, how long have you been a MAG member?
>>>
>>> More important, it would be good to know of the nature of the threats you
>>> experienced during the MAG meetings.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 1:58 PM +0200 5/13/11, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I believe its misunderstanding the text here.
>>>>
>>>> I did not blame the coordinators, I said the steps required to ensure
>>>> that IGC communicates during open consultations and MAG meetings. Its
>>>> a coordinator effort.
>>>>
>>>> Sensitive is a good aspect as it enables realization and
>>>> understanding. Sensitivity to issues and situations is a very humane
>>>> activity and characteristic.
>>>>
>>>> I do feel sad when alumnus MAG members do not share their knowledge or
>>>> gather existing MAG members and work with them on formulating strategy
>>>> and countering the attacks that happen.
>>>>
>>>> Its easy to point fingers but not easy to make things happen and it
>>>> does take a certain sensitive mindset to make things happen.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for identifying the sensitivity in my nature.
>>>>
>>>> Fouad
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Fouad, a shame you have taken such offence.  I do know what it's like to
>>>>> be
>>>>
>>>>  > criticized... I was a MAG member and coordinator for a couple of years.
>>>> But
>>>>  > you are very sensitive. And blaming the coordinators makes no sense,
>>>> just do
>>>>>
>>>>>  your part.
>>>>>
>>>>>  More important though is something you say at the end of your long
>>>>> email:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>  does hold value.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Threats of what kind?  Doesn't sound good at all.  Please explain.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  As for the rest, hope all the MAG members will remember what they said
>>>>> when
>>>>>  taking part in the nominating process and having names put forward for
>>>>> the
>>>>>  MAG.  Not clear what any does anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Adam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  Kindly accept my apologies in advance for being direct as this is
>>>>>>  upsetting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Adam that would be arguable. I appreciate your coming back at me as if
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>  or our MAG members may be faulty. I have never received a single
>>>>>> response to
>>>>>>  my requests to the list when I requested for input. this happened in
>>>>>> 2009,
>>>>>>  2010 and now fingers being pointed in 2011 which is upsetting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  At my end, i have taken IGC statements to the MAG meetings and
>>>>>> attempted
>>>>>>  to the best of my knowledge. I have run after IGC members present
>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>  ongoing advice on issues. Ginger, Parminder, Anriyette, Jovan, Ian,
>>>>>>  Bertrand, Miguel, George, Qusai, Marillia, Bill and the list goes on
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>  all been very kind and helping.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  For the first time in 3 years you interacted with me in the last mag
>>>>>>  meeting on issues of participation. Sorry to say Avri has been right in
>>>>>> many
>>>>
>>>>  >> circumstances and so has Parminder that IGC does lack coordination. It
>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  not time to point fingers but to help work out and strategize for the
>>>>>>  upcoming meeting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  People here come from various organizations and backgrounds. In my case
>>>>>>  the developing state is my major concern and the continuous death and
>>>>>> human
>>>>>>  right violation issues associated with Internet policy are the biggest
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>  threat to me, my citizenry and many others in the developing world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I have witnessed that there is more interest in being part of mag by
>>>>>> many
>>>>>>  then to actually tackle the issues relevant to IG. We have to get our
>>>>>> act
>>>>>>  straight otherwise this is not belong us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Where is IGC's MAG working group thread or discussions, why haven't the
>>>>
>>>>  >> coordinators ever initiated such a thing? Why isn't there a skype
>>>> discussion
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  group for Igc in open consultations and mag? Why aren't we coordinated
>>>>>>  whereas we take so much time to relate and repeat histories of policy
>>>>
>>>>  >> institutions and arrangements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I hear you Adam but you do have the senior experience and exposure to
>>>>>> help
>>>>>>  us from developing countries, work with us and support advice sharing
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>  open consultations and mag meetings. Being cynical is fine but really I
>>>>>> get
>>>>>>  upset with all my developed country CS peers to be arguing on issues of
>>>>
>>>>  >> least relevance to the developing world and more on history and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Process theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  If we can't be helped by you then don't ridicule us especially when we
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>  a victim of our own severe life threatening situations and still
>>>>>> struggling.
>>>>>>  I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>  does hold value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I wish you and many others would be more understanding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Fouad Bajwa
>>>>>>  sent using my iPad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  On 12 May 2011, at 05:58 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   I will be going to the meetings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   We have the workshop scoring activity underway already and it ends
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>   the end of this week.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   I am focusing on IG4D Workshops.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   IGC really needs to work with its MAG representatives on issues of
>>>>>>>>  interest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   You have that the wrong way round.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>   > MAG representatives really need to work with the IGC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   When nominated everyone made promises to consult, inform, etc.  It's
>>>>>>>   not been happening.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Adam
>>>>>>>   '
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   Sorry for the short reply...travelling.....!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   Fouad
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM,  <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   >>> I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>  MAG.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I
>>>>>>>>>  will be
>>>>>>>>>   working in the SOP workshops.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   If there are other workshops that are well done (ie touching the
>>>>>>>>> key
>>>>>>>>>  and hot
>>>>>>>>>   policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>  miss
>>>>>>>>>   it! Katitza.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>   From: katitza at eff.org
>>>>>>>>>   Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>>>>   Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
>>>>>>>>>   To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia
>>>>>>>>>  Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>;
>>>>>>>>>   Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>>>>>   ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
>>>>>>>>>   Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
>>>>>>>>>   Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>>>>>>>>   Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC
>>>>>>>>>  support). I
>>>>>>>>>   will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>  the
>>>>>>>>>   last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I
>>>>>>>>>  should
>>>>>>>>>   make sure to defend, please let me know.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   All the best, Katitza.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>   From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>   Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>>>>   Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
>>>>>>>>>   To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>>>>>   ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel
>>>>>>>>>  <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>   Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
>>>>>>>>> Indian
>>>>>>>>>   proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe
>>>>>>>>>  that our
>>>>>>>>>   main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
>>>>>>>>>   proposal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>  a
>>>>>>>>>   revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner
>>>>>>>>>  without
>>>>>>>>>   reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural
>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>  (ex:
>>>>>>>>>   CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two
>>>>>>>>>  potential
>>>>>>>>>   shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the
>>>>>>>>> business
>>>>>>>>>  sector
>>>>>>>>>   and the technical community, in my view.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal
>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>   starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate
>>>>>>>>>  ideas,
>>>>>>>>>   reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt
>>>>>>>>> IGF¹s
>>>>>>>>>  closet
>>>>>>>>>   for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a
>>>>>>>>> longer
>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>  workshop, with half of it dedicated to a ³setting the scene² and
>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  overview
>>>>>>>>>   of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>  the
>>>>>>>>>   proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be
>>>>>>>>>  dedicated to
>>>>>>>>>   focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don¹t know if
>>>>>>>>>  that
>>>>>>>>>   would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this
>>>>>>>>>  would be
>>>>>>>>>   in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move
>>>>>>>>>  driven by
>>>>>>>>>   political considerations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other
>>>>>>>>>  groups
>>>>>>>>>   will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
>>>>>>>>>   non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several
>>>>>>>>>  IGF
>>>>>>>>>   workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can¹t be 2 or 3 workshops
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>  IGF
>>>>>>>>>   improvement?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   Best,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   Marília
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  workshop,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Instead,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   suggesting
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   that the three be merged.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   >>>>>> desires of Marilia and yourself?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>   have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
>>>>>>>>>>>   teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic
>>>>>>>>>>>  dialogue",
>>>>>>>>>>>   "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as
>>>>>>>>>>> opposed
>>>>>>>>>>>  to
>>>>>>>>>>>   the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how
>>>>>>>>>>>  much
>>>>>>>>>>>   more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is
>>>>>>>>>>>  not
>>>>>>>>>>>   difficult to speculate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and
>>>>>>>>>> general
>>>>>>>>>>   debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd
>>>>>>>>>> strongly
>>>>>>>>>>   support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>   you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>   the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>   approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take
>>>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>>>>   at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>   other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>   non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing
>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>>   with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a
>>>>>>>>>> broad
>>>>>>>>>>   debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Greetings,
>>>>>>>>>>   Norbert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng  Fri May 13 11:54:37 2011
From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 16:54:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] Incude Our Organization
Message-ID: <1305302077812770000@crossriverstate.gov.ng>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/300fe1af/attachment.ksh>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/300fe1af/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 katitza at eff.org  Fri May 13 12:03:40 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:03:40 -0700
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik9aCfz_XS5Q3LZN0UQqcM_PDOu_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>	<BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com>	<9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com>	<p0624081ac9f2b4da24c9@192.168.1.160>	<BANLkTi=JZFRjN+=kXkTQnL=D1WcZVuVQPw@mail.gmail.com>	<p06240820c9f2d2db2d12@192.168.1.160>	<BANLkTi=-K4Q38oyp-iKfrdosyUP8f4gaVA@mail.gmail.com>	<9432083A-2363-41EF-A3EB-7D3F5B6AFCB2@acm.org> <BANLkTik9aCfz_XS5Q3LZN0UQqcM_PDOu_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DCD565C.7040604@eff.org>

+1
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Avri Doria<avri at acm.org>  wrote:
>> Hi Fouad,
>>
>> I understand you not speaking on the substance of the threats on a public list.
>>
>> But I do not believe the shame is on you.  It is on those who threaten.  And it is something that the IGC should find a way to help you with given that you are one of ours.  Perhaps if you talk to the Coordinators or others in Geneva confidentially, something can be figured out.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13 May 2011, at 10:43, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>>
>>> McTim, threats don't happen on public record. They are made by reps of
>>> other stakeholder groups trying to create fear usually targeted to
>>> come to play in the country I come from.
>>>
>>> These have been made on issues like but not limited to ICANN,
>>> Information intermediary workshops, critical internet resources issues
>>> with regards to my country etc.
>>>
>>> I won't be sharing these in much more detail in public since the shame
>>> is on me and I am very sensitive.
>>>
>>> -- FoO
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Adam Peake<ajp at glocom.ac.jp>  wrote:
>>>> Fouad, how long have you been a MAG member?
>>>>
>>>> More important, it would be good to know of the nature of the threats you
>>>> experienced during the MAG meetings.
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At 1:58 PM +0200 5/13/11, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>>>>> I believe its misunderstanding the text here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not blame the coordinators, I said the steps required to ensure
>>>>> that IGC communicates during open consultations and MAG meetings. Its
>>>>> a coordinator effort.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sensitive is a good aspect as it enables realization and
>>>>> understanding. Sensitivity to issues and situations is a very humane
>>>>> activity and characteristic.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do feel sad when alumnus MAG members do not share their knowledge or
>>>>> gather existing MAG members and work with them on formulating strategy
>>>>> and countering the attacks that happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its easy to point fingers but not easy to make things happen and it
>>>>> does take a certain sensitive mindset to make things happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for identifying the sensitivity in my nature.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fouad
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Adam Peake<ajp at glocom.ac.jp>  wrote:
>>>>>>   Fouad, a shame you have taken such offence.  I do know what it's like to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>   >  criticized... I was a MAG member and coordinator for a couple of years.
>>>>> But
>>>>>   >  you are very sensitive. And blaming the coordinators makes no sense,
>>>>> just do
>>>>>>   your part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   More important though is something you say at the end of your long
>>>>>> email:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>   does hold value.
>>>>>>   Threats of what kind?  Doesn't sound good at all.  Please explain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   As for the rest, hope all the MAG members will remember what they said
>>>>>> when
>>>>>>   taking part in the nominating process and having names put forward for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>   MAG.  Not clear what any does anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Adam
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Kindly accept my apologies in advance for being direct as this is
>>>>>>>   upsetting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Adam that would be arguable. I appreciate your coming back at me as if
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>   or our MAG members may be faulty. I have never received a single
>>>>>>> response to
>>>>>>>   my requests to the list when I requested for input. this happened in
>>>>>>> 2009,
>>>>>>>   2010 and now fingers being pointed in 2011 which is upsetting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   At my end, i have taken IGC statements to the MAG meetings and
>>>>>>> attempted
>>>>>>>   to the best of my knowledge. I have run after IGC members present
>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>   ongoing advice on issues. Ginger, Parminder, Anriyette, Jovan, Ian,
>>>>>>>   Bertrand, Miguel, George, Qusai, Marillia, Bill and the list goes on
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>   all been very kind and helping.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   For the first time in 3 years you interacted with me in the last mag
>>>>>>>   meeting on issues of participation. Sorry to say Avri has been right in
>>>>>>> many
>>>>>   >>  circumstances and so has Parminder that IGC does lack coordination. It
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>   not time to point fingers but to help work out and strategize for the
>>>>>>>   upcoming meeting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   People here come from various organizations and backgrounds. In my case
>>>>>>>   the developing state is my major concern and the continuous death and
>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>   right violation issues associated with Internet policy are the biggest
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>   threat to me, my citizenry and many others in the developing world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   I have witnessed that there is more interest in being part of mag by
>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>   then to actually tackle the issues relevant to IG. We have to get our
>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>>   straight otherwise this is not belong us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Where is IGC's MAG working group thread or discussions, why haven't the
>>>>>   >>  coordinators ever initiated such a thing? Why isn't there a skype
>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>   group for Igc in open consultations and mag? Why aren't we coordinated
>>>>>>>   whereas we take so much time to relate and repeat histories of policy
>>>>>   >>  institutions and arrangements.
>>>>>>>   I hear you Adam but you do have the senior experience and exposure to
>>>>>>> help
>>>>>>>   us from developing countries, work with us and support advice sharing
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>   open consultations and mag meetings. Being cynical is fine but really I
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>   upset with all my developed country CS peers to be arguing on issues of
>>>>>   >>  least relevance to the developing world and more on history and
>>>>>>>   Process theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   If we can't be helped by you then don't ridicule us especially when we
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>   a victim of our own severe life threatening situations and still
>>>>>>> struggling.
>>>>>>>   I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>   does hold value.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   I wish you and many others would be more understanding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Fouad Bajwa
>>>>>>>   sent using my iPad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   On 12 May 2011, at 05:58 PM, Adam Peake<ajp at glocom.ac.jp>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Fouad Bajwa<fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>    I will be going to the meetings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    We have the workshop scoring activity underway already and it ends
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>    the end of this week.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    I am focusing on IG4D Workshops.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    IGC really needs to work with its MAG representatives on issues of
>>>>>>>>>   interest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    You have that the wrong way round.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    >  MAG representatives really need to work with the IGC.
>>>>>>>>    When nominated everyone made promises to consult, inform, etc.  It's
>>>>>>>>    not been happening.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Adam
>>>>>>>>    '
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    Sorry for the short reply...travelling.....!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    Fouad
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM,<katitza at eff.org>  wrote:
>>>>>>>    >>>  I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>   MAG.
>>>>>>>>>>    However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I
>>>>>>>>>>   will be
>>>>>>>>>>    working in the SOP workshops.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    If there are other workshops that are well done (ie touching the
>>>>>>>>>> key
>>>>>>>>>>   and hot
>>>>>>>>>>    policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>   miss
>>>>>>>>>>    it! Katitza.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>    From: katitza at eff.org
>>>>>>>>>>    Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>>>>>    Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
>>>>>>>>>>    To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia
>>>>>>>>>>   Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>;
>>>>>>>>>>    Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>>>>>>    ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
>>>>>>>>>>    Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
>>>>>>>>>>    Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>>>>>>>>>    Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC
>>>>>>>>>>   support). I
>>>>>>>>>>    will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>   the
>>>>>>>>>>    last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I
>>>>>>>>>>   should
>>>>>>>>>>    make sure to defend, please let me know.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    All the best, Katitza.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>    From: Marilia Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>    Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>>>>>    Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
>>>>>>>>>>    To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>>>>>>    ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel
>>>>>>>>>>   <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>    Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
>>>>>>>>>> Indian
>>>>>>>>>>    proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe
>>>>>>>>>>   that our
>>>>>>>>>>    main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
>>>>>>>>>>    proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not
>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>   a
>>>>>>>>>>    revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner
>>>>>>>>>>   without
>>>>>>>>>>    reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural
>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>   (ex:
>>>>>>>>>>    CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two
>>>>>>>>>>   potential
>>>>>>>>>>    shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the
>>>>>>>>>> business
>>>>>>>>>>   sector
>>>>>>>>>>    and the technical community, in my view.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>   >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal
>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>    starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate
>>>>>>>>>>   ideas,
>>>>>>>>>>    reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt
>>>>>>>>>> IGF¹s
>>>>>>>>>>   closet
>>>>>>>>>>    for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a
>>>>>>>>>> longer
>>>>>   >>>>>    workshop, with half of it dedicated to a ³setting the scene² and
>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>   overview
>>>>>>>>>>    of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>   the
>>>>>>>>>>    proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be
>>>>>>>>>>   dedicated to
>>>>>>>>>>    focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don¹t know if
>>>>>>>>>>   that
>>>>>>>>>>    would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this
>>>>>>>>>>   would be
>>>>>>>>>>    in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move
>>>>>>>>>>   driven by
>>>>>>>>>>    political considerations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other
>>>>>>>>>>   groups
>>>>>>>>>>    will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
>>>>>>>>>>    non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several
>>>>>>>>>>   IGF
>>>>>>>>>>    workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can¹t be 2 or 3 workshops
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>   IGF
>>>>>>>>>>    improvement?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    Best,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    Marília
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>    Jeremy Malcolm<jeremy at ciroap.org>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>    On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Jeremy Malcolm<jeremy at ciroap.org>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   workshop,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Instead,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    suggesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    that the three be merged.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
>>>>>>>    >>>>>>  desires of Marilia and yourself?
>>>>>>>>>>>>    A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>    have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>    teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic
>>>>>>>>>>>>   dialogue",
>>>>>>>>>>>>    "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as
>>>>>>>>>>>> opposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>   to
>>>>>>>>>>>>    the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how
>>>>>>>>>>>>   much
>>>>>>>>>>>>    more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>   not
>>>>>>>>>>>>    difficult to speculate.
>>>>>>>>>>>    Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and
>>>>>>>>>>> general
>>>>>>>>>>>    debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd
>>>>>>>>>>> strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>    support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>    you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>    the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>    approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take
>>>>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>>>>>    at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>    other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>    non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>    with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a
>>>>>>>>>>> broad
>>>>>>>>>>>    debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>    Greetings,
>>>>>>>>>>>    Norbert
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Fri May 13 12:38:32 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:38:32 -0700
Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: Who are the Civil Society MAG Members going
 to Geneva
Message-ID: <4DCD5E88.6010101@eff.org>

Greetings,

It is urgent to know who from civil society MAG members will be in 
Geneva. Valeria, Graciela, Fouad and myself will be there and we are 
coordinating with the group who has volunteered to help on this. Who else?

Having four Civil Society MAG members actively participating in the MAG 
it is not enough. Sometimes, there is a need to divide by groups to 
discuss each workshop by themes. If we are only four civil society MAGs 
members, this means that there will be able to monitor only four 
"category of workshops" and we might not have enough "hands" to check 
the others.

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Fri May 13 12:51:00 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:51:00 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: IMPORTANT: Which CIVIL SOCIETY Is in town next
 week
In-Reply-To: <4DCD5E88.6010101@eff.org>
References: <4DCD5E88.6010101@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DCD6174.5080703@eff.org>

Hi there,

If we do not have enough civil society in Geneva next week, at least, 
can someone volunteer to
take some leadership role to co-lead some of the discussions around 
organizing workshops?

I know that Marilia will be there? Who else will be in the OC and MAG 
meeting from civil society?

On 5/13/11 9:38 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> It is urgent to know who from civil society MAG members will be in 
> Geneva. Valeria, Graciela, Fouad and myself will be there and we are 
> coordinating with the group who has volunteered to help on this. Who 
> else?
>
> Having four Civil Society MAG members actively participating in the 
> MAG it is not enough. Sometimes, there is a need to divide by groups 
> to discuss each workshop by themes. If we are only four civil society 
> MAGs members, this means that there will be able to monitor only four 
> "category of workshops" and we might not have enough "hands" to check 
> the others.
>
> Which are your thoughts on this?


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Fri May 13 12:53:23 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:53:23 -0700
Subject: [governance] Speak NOW: Who from Civil Society is in Geneva Next
 Week
In-Reply-To: <4DCD6174.5080703@eff.org>
References: <4DCD5E88.6010101@eff.org> <4DCD6174.5080703@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DCD6203.5090403@eff.org>

Hi there,

If we do not have enough civil society MAG members in Geneva next week. 
We urgently need to know who from civil society will be in the OC and 
MAG meeting and want to coordinate with us in private!!

Please speak now!

On 5/13/11 9:38 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> It is urgent to know who from civil society MAG members will be in 
>> Geneva. Valeria, Graciela, Fouad and myself will be there and we are 
>> coordinating with the group who has volunteered to help on this. Who 
>> else?
>>
>> Having four Civil Society MAG members actively participating in the 
>> MAG it is not enough. Sometimes, there is a need to divide by groups 
>> to discuss each workshop by themes. If we are only four civil society 
>> MAGs members, this means that there will be able to monitor only four 
>> "category of workshops" and we might not have enough "hands" to check 
>> the others.
>>
>> Which are your thoughts on this?
>
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 13 13:22:03 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 14:22:03 -0300
Subject: [governance] Speak NOW: Who from Civil Society is in Geneva
 Next Week
In-Reply-To: <4DCD6203.5090403@eff.org>
References: <4DCD5E88.6010101@eff.org>
	<4DCD6174.5080703@eff.org>
	<4DCD6203.5090403@eff.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=YZHLRhesGbuVf7uLRrGoYUHCBPg@mail.gmail.com>

I will be there.

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> If we do not have enough civil society MAG members in Geneva next week. We
> urgently need to know who from civil society will be in the OC and MAG
> meeting and want to coordinate with us in private!!
>
> Please speak now!
>
> On 5/13/11 9:38 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> It is urgent to know who from civil society MAG members will be in
>>> Geneva. Valeria, Graciela, Fouad and myself will be there and we are
>>> coordinating with the group who has volunteered to help on this. Who else?
>>>
>>> Having four Civil Society MAG members actively participating in the MAG
>>> it is not enough. Sometimes, there is a need to divide by groups to discuss
>>> each workshop by themes. If we are only four civil society MAGs members,
>>> this means that there will be able to monitor only four "category of
>>> workshops" and we might not have enough "hands" to check the others.
>>>
>>> Which are your thoughts on this?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of
> speech since 1990
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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/20110513/5fd4fc11/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  Fri May 13 14:02:30 2011
From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 18:02:30 +0000
Subject: [governance] Speak NOW: Who from Civil Society is in Geneva
 Next Week
In-Reply-To: <4DCD6203.5090403@eff.org>
Message-ID: <smn3TtwP.1305309750.0373070.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu>

Dear Katitza,

I'm in Geneva next week.

Yuliya

Le 13/5/2011, "Katitza Rodriguez" <katitza at eff.org> a écrit:

>Hi there,
>
>If we do not have enough civil society MAG members in Geneva next week.
>We urgently need to know who from civil society will be in the OC and
>MAG meeting and want to coordinate with us in private!!
>
>Please speak now!
>
>On 5/13/11 9:38 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> It is urgent to know who from civil society MAG members will be in
>>> Geneva. Valeria, Graciela, Fouad and myself will be there and we are
>>> coordinating with the group who has volunteered to help on this. Who
>>> else?
>>>
>>> Having four Civil Society MAG members actively participating in the
>>> MAG it is not enough. Sometimes, there is a need to divide by groups
>>> to discuss each workshop by themes. If we are only four civil society
>>> MAGs members, this means that there will be able to monitor only four
>>> "category of workshops" and we might not have enough "hands" to check
>>> the others.
>>>
>>> Which are your thoughts on this?
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Katitza Rodriguez
>International Rights Director
>Electronic Frontier Foundation
>katitza at eff.org
>katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
>Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Fri May 13 16:12:16 2011
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 22:12:16 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <4DCD3067.2070100@itforchange.net>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <BANLkTinTEp_VBKTDy3f0UjqjF2DK-5s_DA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTiknai2cjwpc6KpXmxeC99tfQ9LFEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTi=GXXiWFDXkmdG2NembgM=j4goVVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1BFE8BCD-806C-451D-A21C-0612D3D3A692@ciroap.org>
 <4DCD3067.2070100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <3167000.6905.1305317536538.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k07>

If I'm allowed to express my support to the letter, please include me too

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT - France 




> Message du 13/05/11 15:22
> De : "parminder" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
> 
> I understand that Valeria and others are just expressing support for the proposed letter, since they may have not been able to vote within the given time. And I think it is good to hear about more support than may have been listed in the poll.
> 
> I also think it is useful to give people a 24 hour warning of closing a poll. People often vote on the last warning :) .parminder 
> 
> On Friday 13 May 2011 06:40 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 13/05/2011, at 8:50 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: 
Hi Jeremy, 
> 
> You can also include my name. Valeria Betancourt. 
> 
All, 
> Thanks, but the idea is not to include individual IGC members as co-signatories, because it's an IGC statement so that would be redundant.  We are only interested in adding organisations as co-signatories. 
> Thanks for your understanding. 
> --  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. 
> 
> -- 
> p { color: rgb(0, 0, 0); }a:link { } p { color: rgb(0, 0, 0); }a:link { } 
Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change 
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.net
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/65e0600a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110513/65e0600a/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From amedinagomez at gmail.com  Fri May 13 16:16:24 2011
From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:16:24 -0500
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikXKd=c_N8YMzL5-2RwxEN8fGTM7g@mail.gmail.com>

Jeremy
Please add my name
Antonio Medina Gomez
Presidente
Asociacion Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet

2011/5/13 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>:
> It is about 48 hours since the consensus call on the letter to President
> Sarkozy was made, and so far 62 of 63 unique respondents have answered
> affirmatively, with the other respondent abstaining.  The final statement is
> now at
> http://www.igcaucus.org/open-letter-president-sarkozy-eg8-meeting-plan, in
> identical form to the version on which the poll was called, save for a
> punctuation correction.
>
> Therefore, we can consider the Caucus in favour of this statement, which
> should now be translated and disseminated.  I will liaise with Divina about
> that, and with anyone else who has contacts that would be useful for its
> dissemination.
>
> For interest and transparency, the details of those who participated in the
> poll are below.  However, the letter as usual goes out under the IGC's name
> as a collective, without individual signatures.  Having said that, I suggest
> - unless anyone objects - we also open it up to signature by other civil
> society groups, which signatures can be collected while the translation is
> in progress.
>
> Finally and on a different note, we have recently had an influx of new
> members of this list, presumably in anticipation of the 2011 IGF meeting.
> Welcome!
>
> In favour (one double-voter deleted):
>
> Adam Peake
> Alain Ilunga
> Alan Alegre
> Anja Kovacs
> Antoine Kantiza
> Avri Doria
> Baudouin Schombe
> Carolina Aguerre
> Charity Gamboa-Embley
> Daniel Oppermann
> Daniel Pimienta
> Deirdre Williams
> D Graziano
> Dixie Hawtin
> Eleanna Kafeza
> Fatima Cambronero
> Fouad Bajwa
> Ginger Paque
> Gorka Orueta
> Grace Githaiga
> Graciela Selaimen
> Gurumurthy Kasinathan
> Hakikur Rahman
> Hanane Boujemi
> Hindenburgo Pires
> Hong Xue
> Ian Peter
> Iliya Bazlyankov
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Izumi Aizu
> Jacob Odame
> Jamil Goheer
> Jeanette Hofmann
> Jean-Yves Gatete
> Jeremy Hunsinger
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Julián Casasbuenas G
> Karim Attoumani Mohamed
> Lorena Jaume-Palasi
> Louis Pouzin
> Lyman Chapin
> Marie Georges
> Milda Wolf
> Milton L. Mueller
> Mohamed Tijani Ben Jemaa
> Mohamed Zahran
> Monique Chartrand
> Naveed Haq
> Norbert Bollow
> Olivier Crepin-Leblond
> Omar Kaminski
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Paul Lehto
> Ray Plzak
> Reileen Dulay
> Ricardo Patara
> Roger Clarke
> Rudi Vansnick
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> Sylvia Caras
> Tracey Naughton
> William Drake
>
> Abstaining:
>
> David Allen
>
> --
>
> 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
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From jumaropi at yahoo.com  Fri May 13 17:02:23 2011
From: jumaropi at yahoo.com (Juan Manuel Rojas)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 14:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <178720.92466.qm@web125418.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Jeremy,
Please add my name

JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P

Chairman
AGEIA DENSI COLOMBIA

Ubuntu user number # 33469
Linux Registered user #533108. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNyZdRAAoJEAJlBu7l5k+v4FoH/A+KN/CXDpJWU5Obo2r5yZVH
z5z2L0W7BNhm2uw2i42ANELMKrod3zcomr4IfCLGMykmVu+jPH6utLJLLtxcsbi2
6fhuGVjRqvAcsJQVFaGGbp5V4b6oW71JcnWYYlC+jMlTbVE0n1adFqcmdsWuvNi9
+WcJljkJy5uSzwGlREyCuDtZJ4owK2uZvuzn9y8zI1+nOzTKblzAj+2aAoX/2hK3
9LkWg3fzFVWqN18bOYA3pNKHAE5AJElBSxoIQeRvE2K7iEz5Mv8u9E9/ZPBnnqMV
g5ecENE4QutlyamckjRifv+H9FnDTZ9MGgLTUtx4EsqpWnjJylH44fbCxgvhCZ4=
=n26T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----






                                                   

________________________________
De: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Enviado: viernes, mayo 13, 2011 2:19 A.M.
Asunto: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter


It is about 48 hours since the consensus call on the letter to President Sarkozy was made, and so far 62 of 63 unique respondents have answered affirmatively, with the other respondent abstaining.  The final statement is now at http://www.igcaucus.org/open-letter-president-sarkozy-eg8-meeting-plan, in identical form to the version on which the poll was called, save for a punctuation correction.

Therefore, we can consider the Caucus in favour of this statement,
    which should now be translated and disseminated.  I will liaise with
    Divina about that, and with anyone else who has contacts that would
    be useful for its dissemination.

For interest and transparency, the details of those who participated
    in the poll are below.  However, the letter as usual goes out under
    the IGC's name as a collective, without individual signatures. 
    Having said that, I suggest - unless anyone objects - we also open
    it up to signature by other civil society groups, which signatures
    can be collected while the translation is in progress.

Finally and on a different note, we have recently had an influx of
    new members of this list, presumably in anticipation of the 2011 IGF
    meeting.  Welcome!

In favour (one double-voter deleted):

Adam Peake
Alain Ilunga
Alan Alegre
Anja Kovacs
Antoine Kantiza
Avri Doria
Baudouin Schombe
Carolina Aguerre
Charity Gamboa-Embley
Daniel Oppermann
Daniel Pimienta
Deirdre Williams
D Graziano
Dixie Hawtin
Eleanna Kafeza
Fatima Cambronero
Fouad Bajwa
Ginger Paque
Gorka Orueta
Grace Githaiga
Graciela Selaimen
Gurumurthy Kasinathan
Hakikur Rahman
Hanane Boujemi
Hindenburgo Pires
Hong Xue
Ian Peter
Iliya Bazlyankov
Imran Ahmed Shah
Izumi Aizu
Jacob Odame
Jamil Goheer
Jeanette Hofmann
Jean-Yves Gatete
Jeremy Hunsinger
Jeremy Malcolm
Julián Casasbuenas G
Karim Attoumani Mohamed
Lorena Jaume-Palasi
Louis Pouzin
Lyman Chapin
Marie Georges
Milda Wolf
Milton L. Mueller
Mohamed Tijani Ben Jemaa
Mohamed Zahran
Monique Chartrand
Naveed Haq
Norbert Bollow
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Omar Kaminski
Parminder Jeet Singh
Paul Lehto
Ray Plzak
Reileen Dulay
Ricardo Patara
Roger Clarke
Rudi Vansnick
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Sylvia Caras
Tracey Naughton
William Drake

Abstaining:

David Allen


-- 

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

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/20110513/00d4e69b/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 siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com  Sat May 14 07:32:25 2011
From: siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com (Siranush Vardanyan)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 11:32:25 +0000
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <4DCD3067.2070100@itforchange.net>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <BANLkTinTEp_VBKTDy3f0UjqjF2DK-5s_DA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTiknai2cjwpc6KpXmxeC99tfQ9LFEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTi=GXXiWFDXkmdG2NembgM=j4goVVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1BFE8BCD-806C-451D-A21C-0612D3D3A692@ciroap.org>,<4DCD3067.2070100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <BAY148-w240E2376CE221D1196180DE18B0@phx.gbl>


Dear Jeremy, 
If it is not too late, please, also include my name, I was travelling and coudn't vote during the given time
Best
Siranush Vardanyan

Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 18:51:43 +0530
From: parminder at itforchange.net
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter



  


    
  
  
    I understand that Valeria and others are
      just expressing support for the proposed letter, since they may
      have not been able to vote within the given time. And I think it
      is good to hear about more support than may have been listed in
      the poll.

      

      I also think it is useful to give people a 24 hour warning of
      closing a poll. People often vote on the last warning :)
    .parminder 

    

    On Friday 13 May 2011 06:40 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
    
      
        On 13/05/2011, at 8:50 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
        
        Hi Jeremy, 

          

          You can also include my name. Valeria Betancourt. 

        
      
      
      
      All,
      

      
      Thanks, but the idea is not to include individual IGC members
        as co-signatories, because it's an IGC statement so that would
        be redundant.  We are only interested in adding organisations as
        co-signatories.
      

      
      Thanks for your understanding.
      

      
      
            
                
                      
                          
                              
                                  
                                      
                                          
                                            
                                              -- 
                                              
                                                  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.
                                                
                                            
                                          
                                        
                                    
                                
                            
                        
                    
              
          
      
      

    
    

    -- 

      
      Message body
      
      
        
      
      Parminder Jeet Singh

            Executive
                Director

                IT for Change 

                NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United
                Nations ECOSOC

          www.ITforChange.net

                Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055

                

              
      

      
     		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110514/d2cc1ffb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110514/d2cc1ffb/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat May 14 12:07:31 2011
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 09:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Re: Invitation to participate in poll on submission to
 CSTD
In-Reply-To: <4984dde90d4078043b88d66d2671de65@www.igcaucus.org>
References: <4984dde90d4078043b88d66d2671de65@www.igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <542629.82916.qm@web161915.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Thank you Jeremy
I was traveling and could not vote on this. It would be helpful if there was 
some indication of time and date of when voting polls close.
Many thanks for all you do.
Shaila Rao Mistry

 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: shailam at yahoo.com
Sent: Fri, March 11, 2011 2:33:03 AM
Subject: Invitation to participate in poll on submission to CSTD

 Dear Shaila,

You have been invited to participate in the latest poll issued  by the 
coordinators of the Internet Governance Caucus to assist them in  assessing 
whether consensus exists on a proposed submission.

The submission, recently discussed on the governance list, is for the CSTD's 
Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance  Forum.

To participate, please click on the link below.

Thanks, Jeremy and Izumi.

----------------------------------------------
Click here to do the survey:
http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?lang=en&sid=21243&token=8j3i5tvkya8yws5


If you do not want to participate in this survey and don't want  to receive any 
more invitations please click the following link:
http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey/optout.php?lang=en&sid=21243&token=8j3i5tvkya8yws5


-- 
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.http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey/optout.php?lang=en&sid=21243&token=8j3i5tvkya8yws5
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110514/9ea1329d/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  Sat May 14 21:17:16 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 09:17:16 +0800
Subject: [governance] open standard for "facebook crowd" interactions
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim5HSpMaxV0nfkrdKDLDeCmCuigRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3AA57A8136AC4C42A06FEB1618785CF3@userPC>

Tim,

I'm not sure I understand the specifics of your answer but at the general
level I understand you as saying that CS shouldn't be concerning itself with
the operations of FB and similar companies as the market will somehow take
care of this.

Could I point you to the following

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/facebook-privacy-meeting/

and suggest that even if Civil Society doesn't express an interest there are
larger political forces which do have an interest.  The problem that I have
with this as I mentioned before is that while the US Congress may be
representing the interests of 20% of FB users, who or what is representing
(or rather could represent) the interests of the other 80%?

This is a question which I think the IGC should very much be attempting to
address and in whatever fashion moving to have the global IG community
address this as well.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of McTim
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:24 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow
Subject: Re: [governance] open standard for "facebook crowd" interactions


On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE 
>> activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for 
>> potential IG bodies???
>
> Cool idea.
>
> How's the following for a topic?
>
> I think that it should be possible for me to interact with anyone who 
> is "on facebook" and who wants to interact with me, without having to 
> put my personal data onto the servers of a company that I don't trust 
> at all, and which in addition is under the jurisdiction of a country 
> whose legal system I trust much less than I trust the Swiss one.
>
> Now I'm not demanding that Facebook Inc. should go out business or 
> that they'd have to "give away" copies of their software, just that 
> there should be open interfaces allowing others to implement their own 
> software to communicate with the "facebook crowd" while keeping their 
> personal data on servers of their own choosing. (And analogously for 
> other "social network" server based services.)


Those things already exist, and account (in part) for the success of
FB/Twitter/etc.  Isn't that the whole point of APIs?

from wikipedia:

More than 250,000 websites have integrated with Facebook Platform More than
100 million Facebook users engage with Facebook on external websites every
month

That is why FB put Burson Marsteller on an anti-Google campaign recently,
Google was scraping FB data for its "Social Circle".


>
> I have no idea what would be a suitable forum for effectively 
> addressing this topic.

It has already been addressed IMO,

If you want to interact with FB, you are free to do so, if not, then don't
(and build your own thing).


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

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

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat May 14 23:53:54 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 06:53:54 +0300
Subject: [governance] open standard for "facebook crowd" interactions
In-Reply-To: <3AA57A8136AC4C42A06FEB1618785CF3@userPC>
References: <BANLkTim5HSpMaxV0nfkrdKDLDeCmCuigRQ@mail.gmail.com> <3AA57A8136AC4C42A06FEB1618785CF3@userPC>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=tZxx=S8LzE9jEQrT82nH_KDGwaw@mail.gmail.com>

hi,

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim,
>
> I'm not sure I understand the specifics of your answer but at the general
> level I understand you as saying that CS shouldn't be concerning itself with
> the operations of FB and similar companies as the market will somehow take
> care of this.

No, re-read Norberts post and then mine.  It is a different subject.

and here is a link that relates more directly to Norberts concern.

http://www.webmonkey.com/tag/f8/


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From anriette at apc.org  Sun May 15 14:17:11 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 20:17:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] Speak NOW: Who from Civil Society is in Geneva
 Next Week
In-Reply-To: <4DCD6203.5090403@eff.org>
References: <4DCD5E88.6010101@eff.org> <4DCD6174.5080703@eff.org> <4DCD6203.5090403@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DD018A7.1090408@apc.org>

Dear Katitza

I am here already... arrived this morning and will be here for the week,
and for CSTD next week, I will be speaking at the WSIS Forum opening
tomorrow.

Valeria Betancourt will be arriving on Tuesday, and also Joy Liddicoat,
APC's new human rights/internet rights project coordinator.

Chat Garcia Ramilo, APC women's programme manager will come for the CSTD
meeting next week.

APC member who I hope will make it is Reza Salim from Bangladesh.
Possibly others... but I cannot confirm.

Anriette



On 13/05/11 18:53, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> If we do not have enough civil society MAG members in Geneva next week.
> We urgently need to know who from civil society will be in the OC and
> MAG meeting and want to coordinate with us in private!!
> 
> Please speak now!
> 
> On 5/13/11 9:38 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> It is urgent to know who from civil society MAG members will be in
>>> Geneva. Valeria, Graciela, Fouad and myself will be there and we are
>>> coordinating with the group who has volunteered to help on this. Who
>>> else?
>>>
>>> Having four Civil Society MAG members actively participating in the
>>> MAG it is not enough. Sometimes, there is a need to divide by groups
>>> to discuss each workshop by themes. If we are only four civil society
>>> MAGs members, this means that there will be able to monitor only four
>>> "category of workshops" and we might not have enough "hands" to check
>>> the others.
>>>
>>> Which are your thoughts on this?
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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 graciela at nupef.org.br  Sun May 15 14:25:24 2011
From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 15:25:24 -0300
Subject: [governance] Speak NOW: Who from Civil Society is in Geneva
 Next Week
In-Reply-To: <4DD018A7.1090408@apc.org>
References: <4DCD5E88.6010101@eff.org> <4DCD6174.5080703@eff.org> <4DCD6203.5090403@eff.org> <4DD018A7.1090408@apc.org>
Message-ID: <4DD01A94.1000905@nupef.org.br>

Hi, all

I'll be there as well. Arriving on Tueday.

best,
Graciela

Em 5/15/11 3:17 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen escreveu:
> Dear Katitza
>
> I am here already... arrived this morning and will be here for the week,
> and for CSTD next week, I will be speaking at the WSIS Forum opening
> tomorrow.
>
> Valeria Betancourt will be arriving on Tuesday, and also Joy Liddicoat,
> APC's new human rights/internet rights project coordinator.
>
> Chat Garcia Ramilo, APC women's programme manager will come for the CSTD
> meeting next week.
>
> APC member who I hope will make it is Reza Salim from Bangladesh.
> Possibly others... but I cannot confirm.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 13/05/11 18:53, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> If we do not have enough civil society MAG members in Geneva next week.
>> We urgently need to know who from civil society will be in the OC and
>> MAG meeting and want to coordinate with us in private!!
>>
>> Please speak now!
>>
>> On 5/13/11 9:38 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> It is urgent to know who from civil society MAG members will be in
>>>> Geneva. Valeria, Graciela, Fouad and myself will be there and we are
>>>> coordinating with the group who has volunteered to help on this. Who
>>>> else?
>>>>
>>>> Having four Civil Society MAG members actively participating in the
>>>> MAG it is not enough. Sometimes, there is a need to divide by groups
>>>> to discuss each workshop by themes. If we are only four civil society
>>>> MAGs members, this means that there will be able to monitor only four
>>>> "category of workshops" and we might not have enough "hands" to check
>>>> the others.
>>>>
>>>> Which are your thoughts on this?
>>>
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sun May 15 14:40:37 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 18:40:37 +0000
Subject: [governance] Speak NOW: Who from Civil Society is in Geneva
 Next Week
In-Reply-To: <4DD018A7.1090408@apc.org>
References: <4DCD5E88.6010101@eff.org>
	<4DCD6174.5080703@eff.org>
	<4DCD6203.5090403@eff.org>
	<4DD018A7.1090408@apc.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinYR362W-AybHSdb3dn=a9aNFTEOQ@mail.gmail.com>

I have also arrived :o)

-- FoO

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> Dear Katitza
>
> I am here already... arrived this morning and will be here for the week,
> and for CSTD next week, I will be speaking at the WSIS Forum opening
> tomorrow.
>
> Valeria Betancourt will be arriving on Tuesday, and also Joy Liddicoat,
> APC's new human rights/internet rights project coordinator.
>
> Chat Garcia Ramilo, APC women's programme manager will come for the CSTD
> meeting next week.
>
> APC member who I hope will make it is Reza Salim from Bangladesh.
> Possibly others... but I cannot confirm.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 13/05/11 18:53, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> If we do not have enough civil society MAG members in Geneva next week.
>> We urgently need to know who from civil society will be in the OC and
>> MAG meeting and want to coordinate with us in private!!
>>
>> Please speak now!
>>
>> On 5/13/11 9:38 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> It is urgent to know who from civil society MAG members will be in
>>>> Geneva. Valeria, Graciela, Fouad and myself will be there and we are
>>>> coordinating with the group who has volunteered to help on this. Who
>>>> else?
>>>>
>>>> Having four Civil Society MAG members actively participating in the
>>>> MAG it is not enough. Sometimes, there is a need to divide by groups
>>>> to discuss each workshop by themes. If we are only four civil society
>>>> MAGs members, this means that there will be able to monitor only four
>>>> "category of workshops" and we might not have enough "hands" to check
>>>> the others.
>>>>
>>>> Which are your thoughts on this?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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 nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com  Sun May 15 15:13:00 2011
From: nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com (NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 20:13:00 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [governance] Speak NOW: Who from Civil Society is in Geneva
 Next Week
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinYR362W-AybHSdb3dn=a9aNFTEOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50195.93101.qm@web29506.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

I am here already..came in yesterday. Fouad call me on 0783143857



Pastor Peters Osawaru OMORAGBON,


Executive President/CEO-Nurses Across the Borders Inc.(USA & NIGERIA)        President, Diaspora Nurses Association of Nigeria-DNAN        


Fellow-Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers-ICANN
Fellow-Open Society Institute, Budapest
Designated Focal Person-United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change-UNFCCC in Nigeria
Board Member, Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the UN-CONGO

Secretary, Regional Committee for Africa-Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the UN-CONGO
Tel: +441438729726, +234-8052658024,
Email: diasporanursesa at yahoo.com, petersomoragbon2 at yahoo.co.uk, 



--- On Sun, 15/5/11, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Speak NOW: Who from Civil Society is in Geneva Next Week
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Anriette Esterhuysen" <anriette at apc.org>
Date: Sunday, 15 May, 2011, 19:40


I have also arrived :o)

-- FoO

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> Dear Katitza
>
> I am here already... arrived this morning and will be here for the week,
> and for CSTD next week, I will be speaking at the WSIS Forum opening
> tomorrow.
>
> Valeria Betancourt will be arriving on Tuesday, and also Joy Liddicoat,
> APC's new human rights/internet rights project coordinator.
>
> Chat Garcia Ramilo, APC women's programme manager will come for the CSTD
> meeting next week.
>
> APC member who I hope will make it is Reza Salim from Bangladesh.
> Possibly others... but I cannot confirm.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 13/05/11 18:53, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> If we do not have enough civil society MAG members in Geneva next week.
>> We urgently need to know who from civil society will be in the OC and
>> MAG meeting and want to coordinate with us in private!!
>>
>> Please speak now!
>>
>> On 5/13/11 9:38 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> It is urgent to know who from civil society MAG members will be in
>>>> Geneva. Valeria, Graciela, Fouad and myself will be there and we are
>>>> coordinating with the group who has volunteered to help on this. Who
>>>> else?
>>>>
>>>> Having four Civil Society MAG members actively participating in the
>>>> MAG it is not enough. Sometimes, there is a need to divide by groups
>>>> to discuss each workshop by themes. If we are only four civil society
>>>> MAGs members, this means that there will be able to monitor only four
>>>> "category of workshops" and we might not have enough "hands" to check
>>>> the others.
>>>>
>>>> Which are your thoughts on this?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110515/4124abac/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  Sun May 15 15:24:53 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 21:24:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] Speak NOW: Who from Civil Society is in Geneva
 Next Week
In-Reply-To: <50195.93101.qm@web29506.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
References: <50195.93101.qm@web29506.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4DD02885.2050609@apc.org>

I also saw Coura Fall from Senegal at the airport today, so she is here
too.

Anriette



On 15/05/11 21:13, NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS wrote:
> I am here already..came in yesterday. Fouad call me on 0783143857
> 
> 
> Pastor Peters Osawaru OMORAGBON,
> 
>     * Executive President/CEO-Nurses Across the Borders Inc.(USA & NIGERIA)
> 
>         President, Diaspora Nurses Association of Nigeria-DNAN      
> 
>     * Fellow-Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers-ICANN
>     * Fellow-Open Society Institute, Budapest
>     * Designated Focal Person-United Nations Framework Convention on
>       Climate Change-UNFCCC in Nigeria
>     * Board Member, Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with
>       the UN-CONGO
>     * Secretary, Regional Committee for Africa-Conference of NGOs in
>       Consultative Relationship with the UN-CONGO
>     * Tel: +441438729726, +234-8052658024,
>     * Email: diasporanursesa at yahoo.com, petersomoragbon2 at yahoo.co.uk,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On *Sun, 15/5/11, Fouad Bajwa /<fouadbajwa at gmail.com>/* wrote:
> 
> 
>     From: Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
>     Subject: Re: [governance] Speak NOW: Who from Civil Society is in
>     Geneva Next Week
>     To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Anriette Esterhuysen" <anriette at apc.org>
>     Date: Sunday, 15 May, 2011, 19:40
> 
>     I have also arrived :o)
> 
>     -- FoO
> 
>     On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen
>     <anriette at apc.org
>     <http://uk.mc295.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>     > Dear Katitza
>     >
>     > I am here already... arrived this morning and will be here for the
>     week,
>     > and for CSTD next week, I will be speaking at the WSIS Forum opening
>     > tomorrow.
>     >
>     > Valeria Betancourt will be arriving on Tuesday, and also Joy
>     Liddicoat,
>     > APC's new human rights/internet rights project coordinator.
>     >
>     > Chat Garcia Ramilo, APC women's programme manager will come for
>     the CSTD
>     > meeting next week.
>     >
>     > APC member who I hope will make it is Reza Salim from Bangladesh.
>     > Possibly others... but I cannot confirm.
>     >
>     > Anriette
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On 13/05/11 18:53, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>     >> Hi there,
>     >>
>     >> If we do not have enough civil society MAG members in Geneva next
>     week.
>     >> We urgently need to know who from civil society will be in the OC and
>     >> MAG meeting and want to coordinate with us in private!!
>     >>
>     >> Please speak now!
>     >>
>     >> On 5/13/11 9:38 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>     >>>> Greetings,
>     >>>>
>     >>>> It is urgent to know who from civil society MAG members will be in
>     >>>> Geneva. Valeria, Graciela, Fouad and myself will be there and
>     we are
>     >>>> coordinating with the group who has volunteered to help on
>     this. Who
>     >>>> else?
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Having four Civil Society MAG members actively participating in the
>     >>>> MAG it is not enough. Sometimes, there is a need to divide by
>     groups
>     >>>> to discuss each workshop by themes. If we are only four civil
>     society
>     >>>> MAGs members, this means that there will be able to monitor
>     only four
>     >>>> "category of workshops" and we might not have enough "hands" to
>     check
>     >>>> the others.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Which are your thoughts on this?
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >
>     > --
>     > ------------------------------------------------------
>     > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>     <http://uk.mc295.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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
>     <http://uk.mc295.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     > To be removed from the list, visit:
>     >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>     >
>     > For all other list information and functions, see:
>     >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>     > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>     >
>     > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>     >
>     >
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     <http://uk.mc295.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>          http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>     To 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 divina.meigs at orange.fr  Mon May 16 01:14:54 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 07:14:54 +0200
Subject: [governance] French version, IGC letter to Sarkozy
Message-ID: <C9F67F70.20BEF%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Dear all

Please find below and attached the translation in French of our letter to
President Sarkozy. I hope I haven¹t tampered much with the spirit of the
text for the sake of style and clarity. I hope also that we can all use it
to make our voice heard, in the appropriate quarters and venues.

Best
Divina



Lettre ouverte à monsieur le président  Nicolas Sarkozy
 
La Coalition pour la Gouvernance d¹Internet (Internet Governance Caucus) est
un forum ouvert composé d'individus et d¹organisations issus de la société
civile qui se sont réunis dans le contexte du Sommet Mondial sur la Société
de l'Information (SMSI) pour promouvoir des objectifs d¹intérêt public
mondial en ce qui concerne la mise en place de    politiques de gouvernance
d¹Internet (voir http: // www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org> ).
 
Nous avons appris que la Présidence française du G8 se propose de tenir une
conférence sur l¹Internet  ‹ le « e-G8 Forum » ‹ immédiatement avant le
sommet du G8 à Deauville, en vue de préparer  ou d¹aménager  l'ordre du jour
du sommet du G8 en ce qui concerne les questions-clé relatives à l¹Internet
global.   Nous avons aussi appris que  beaucoup de chefs d¹états des pays du
G8 sont attendus pour y participer.  Cette rencontre est particulièrement
importante puisque, par le passé, le G8 a établit l'ordre du jour mondial en
ce qui concerne de nombreuses questions-clé, en particulier dans le domaine
de la  société de l¹information.
 
Nous sommes très inquiets de la façon dont le e-G8 Forum est organisé car il
ne tient pas compte des bonnes pratiques actuelles en matière de politique
publique.  Il jette aussi par-dessus bord le principe de participation
multipartite qui s'est développé à l'échelle mondiale, particulièrement dans
le secteur de la gouvernance d¹Internet. Il apparaît que le e-G8 Forum est
organisé par le secteur privé et que l¹accès est donné aux seuls acteurs des
entreprises privées et des gouvernements. Nous avons aussi compris qu'il y a
un lien entre les sponsors et les invitations.
 
Les grandes entreprises exercent déjà une influence disproportionnée sur les
processus de politique publique. Que des gouvernements valident une
conférence spécifique avec des leaders et des fonctionnaires de haut niveau
pour planifier l'ordre du jour mondial concernant les politiques relatives à
l¹Internet  est inapproprié. Ce qui est exigé ici, c¹est une discussion qui
inclut des acteurs de la société civile, lesquels apporteront à la table des
négociations  des préoccupations d¹intérêt public mondial émanant d¹une
grande diversité de populations et reflétant les préoccupations de nombreux
secteurs  sociaux. 
 
Il est aussi pertinent de déclarer ici que puisque l¹Internet est
essentiellement un phénomène mondial, les orientations politiques
rassemblées par les nations les plus puissantes deviendront, en toute
probabilité, la norme mondiale par défaut. C'est plus particulièrement vrai
pour les questions d¹architecture et d¹économie, mais l'impact global sur
d'autres secteurs sera aussi substantiel. Il est donc approprié que les pays
du G8 discutent de ces questions de politiques publiques de l¹Internet, et
d¹autres, dans des forums mondiaux plus démocratiques où tous les pays sont
présents sur un pied d¹égalité. A cet égard, le Sommet Mondial sur la
Société de l¹Information (SMSI) a mis en place un ensemble de procédures
pour traiter des questions urgentes liées à l¹Internet global. La
participation multipartite est une partie importante de ces procédures
mondiales de gouvernance. Nous considérons le e-G8 Forum comme un pas en
arrière significatif tant pour la démocratie mondiale que pour la
participation multipartite.
 
Les questions auxquelles nous faisons face en ce qui concerne la gouvernance
et le développement d¹Internet sont de nature mondiale et y trouver des
solutions adéquates  nécessitera l¹implication de tous les pays, ainsi
qu'une vaste gamme de représentants des intérêts de la société civile, du
secteur privé et de la communauté technique.
 
Nous vous demandons donc, à vous ainsi qu¹aux autres leaders du G8,  de
faire en sorte que le e-G8 Forum  soit authentiquement multipartite, sur le
modèle du Forum de la Gouvernance d¹Internet (FGI) de l'ONU. Nous sommes
impressionnés par l¹appui solide des pays du G8 pour soutenir un modèle
multipartite au FGI. Le soutien que beaucoup de pays du G8, y compris le
vôtre, ont manifesté à cette participation multipartite large et complète au
FGI rend la présente décision de limiter la discussion aux intérêts
sectoriels des partenaires industriels des  gouvernements déconcertante et
inacceptable pour notre Coalition, qui défend les intérêts de la société
civile en matière de gouvernance d¹Internet.
 
Veuillez agréer, monsieur le président, l'expression de nos sentiments
distingués
 
Jeremy Malcolm et Izumi Aizu
Coordinateurs
Coalition pour la Gouvernance d¹Internet
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110516/e4b93fbc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGC letter to Sarkozy.FR.rtf
Type: application/msword
Size: 52202 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110516/e4b93fbc/attachment.dot>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 16 05:24:57 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 18:24:57 +0900
Subject: [governance] Speak NOW: Who from Civil Society is in Geneva
 Next Week
In-Reply-To: <4DD02885.2050609@apc.org>
References: <50195.93101.qm@web29506.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4DD02885.2050609@apc.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTik956dotuc-h+tDNXG-KXa=1bJNWg@mail.gmail.com>

too bad, i can't be there this time.


izumi

2011/5/16 Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>:
> I also saw Coura Fall from Senegal at the airport today, so she is here
> too.
>
> 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 nhklein at gmx.net  Mon May 16 06:59:05 2011
From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 17:59:05 +0700
Subject: AW: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <4DD10379.3050501@gmx.net>

On 5/13/2011 7:23 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
> Please add my name
Same - sorry that I am late, I was traveling.

Norbert Klein
Phnom Penh/Cambodia
>
> Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter
>
> thanks
>
> w
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm
> Gesendet: Fr 13.05.2011 09:19
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
>
>
> It is about 48 hours since the consensus call on the letter to President Sarkozy was made, and so far 62 of 63 unique respondents have answered affirmatively, with the other respondent abstaining.  The final statement is now at http://www.igcaucus.org/open-letter-president-sarkozy-eg8-meeting-plan, in identical form to the version on which the poll was called, save for a punctuation correction.
>
> Therefore, we can consider the Caucus in favour of this statement, which should now be translated and disseminated.  I will liaise with Divina about that, and with anyone else who has contacts that would be useful for its dissemination.
>
> For interest and transparency, the details of those who participated in the poll are below.  However, the letter as usual goes out under the IGC's name as a collective, without individual signatures.  Having said that, I suggest - unless anyone objects - we also open it up to signature by other civil society groups, which signatures can be collected while the translation is in progress.
>
> Finally and on a different note, we have recently had an influx of new members of this list, presumably in anticipation of the 2011 IGF meeting.  Welcome!
>
> In favour (one double-voter deleted):
>
> Adam Peake
> Alain Ilunga
> Alan Alegre
> Anja Kovacs
> Antoine Kantiza
> Avri Doria
> Baudouin Schombe
> Carolina Aguerre
> Charity Gamboa-Embley
> Daniel Oppermann
> Daniel Pimienta
> Deirdre Williams
> D Graziano
> Dixie Hawtin
> Eleanna Kafeza
> Fatima Cambronero
> Fouad Bajwa
> Ginger Paque
> Gorka Orueta
> Grace Githaiga
> Graciela Selaimen
> Gurumurthy Kasinathan
> Hakikur Rahman
> Hanane Boujemi
> Hindenburgo Pires
> Hong Xue
> Ian Peter
> Iliya Bazlyankov
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Izumi Aizu
> Jacob Odame
> Jamil Goheer
> Jeanette Hofmann
> Jean-Yves Gatete
> Jeremy Hunsinger
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Julián Casasbuenas G
> Karim Attoumani Mohamed
> Lorena Jaume-Palasi
> Louis Pouzin
> Lyman Chapin
> Marie Georges
> Milda Wolf
> Milton L. Mueller
> Mohamed Tijani Ben Jemaa
> Mohamed Zahran
> Monique Chartrand
> Naveed Haq
> Norbert Bollow
> Olivier Crepin-Leblond
> Omar Kaminski
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Paul Lehto
> Ray Plzak
> Reileen Dulay
> Ricardo Patara
> Roger Clarke
> Rudi Vansnick
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> Sylvia Caras
> Tracey Naughton
> William Drake
>
> Abstaining:
>
> David Allen
>
>


-- 
Since 3 April 2011, The Mirror with reports and comments from Cambodia - originally since 1997 based on daily translations from the Khmer language press, is now only an archive of the past: http://www.cambodiamirror.org

But I started a new personal blog:

...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia
http://www.thinking21.org/

continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia.

Norbert Klein
nhklein at gmx.net
Phnom Penh / Cambodia


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

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

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


From nb at bollow.ch  Mon May 16 08:58:55 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:58:55 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] open standard for "facebook crowd" interactions
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim5HSpMaxV0nfkrdKDLDeCmCuigRQ@mail.gmail.com> (message
	from McTim on Fri, 13 May 2011 07:24:08 +0300)
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
 <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com> <20110512164515.2C1AB15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTim5HSpMaxV0nfkrdKDLDeCmCuigRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110516125855.5464415C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE
> >> activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for
> >> potential IG bodies???
> >
> > Cool idea.
> >
> > How's the following for a topic?
> >
> > I think that it should be possible for me to interact with anyone who
> > is "on facebook" and who wants to interact with me, without having to
> > put my personal data onto the servers of a company that I don't trust
> > at all, and which in addition is under the jurisdiction of a country
> > whose legal system I trust much less than I trust the Swiss one.
> >
> > Now I'm not demanding that Facebook Inc. should go out business or
> > that they'd have to "give away" copies of their software, just that
> > there should be open interfaces allowing others to implement their own
> > software to communicate with the "facebook crowd" while keeping their
> > personal data on servers of their own choosing. (And analogously for
> > other "social network" server based services.)
> 
> Those things already exist, and account (in part) for the success of
> FB/Twitter/etc.  Isn't that the whole point of APIs?
>
> from wikipedia:
> 
> More than 250,000 websites have integrated with Facebook Platform
> More than 100 million Facebook users engage with Facebook on external
> websites every month
> 
> That is why FB put Burson Marsteller on an anti-Google campaign
> recently, Google was scraping FB data for its "Social Circle".

As far as I know, those APIs are more about making external websites
part of Facebook's engine of collecting ever-more personal information
about people than about providing people with ways of interacting with
each other without leaking personal data to Facebook Inc.

But let's assume that I'm mistaken and APIs exist for everything that
I'd want...

> > I have no idea what would be a suitable forum for effectively
> > addressing this topic.
> 
> It has already been addressed IMO,

If the only way in which it has been partly addressed is by
unilateral actions of Facebook Inc. which the company takes
because these actions are expected to further their business
interests, then I am not satisfied about that kind of internet
governance which puts all this power mostly into the hands of
a single company and to some extent into the hands of the
government of the country where the company is headquartered.

> If you want to interact with FB, you are free to do so, if not, then
> don't (and build your own thing).

Suppose someone invested a lot of effort into building something
which meeting similar communication needs as FB, but with better
privacy properties. Network effects would likely cause this new
thing to be very unattractive to potential early adopters because
"everyone is on Facebook" unless sufficiently rich APIs are
available to effectively integrate the users of facebook.com
with the users of the new site into a single social network.

Even if we assume that suitable APIs for doing this exist *now*,
in the absence of any effective governance mechanism that takes
adequately into account also stakeholder interests which may
conflict with those of Facebook Inc. and the perceived interest
of the U.S. government, the company is not in any way obligated
to play along -- and the risk that they possibly wouldn't is
probably enough to prevent anyone from making the above-mentioned
investment.

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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon May 16 09:09:09 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:09:09 +0300
Subject: [governance] open standard for "facebook crowd" interactions
In-Reply-To: <20110516125855.5464415C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
 <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com> <20110512164515.2C1AB15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <BANLkTim5HSpMaxV0nfkrdKDLDeCmCuigRQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110516125855.5464415C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTin=emJ8muv=tKS0ue9Wi6JRLUpa9Q@mail.gmail.com>

Norbert,

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

<snip>

> But let's assume that I'm mistaken and APIs exist for everything that
> I'd want...
>
>> > I have no idea what would be a suitable forum for effectively
>> > addressing this topic.
>>
>> It has already been addressed IMO,
>
> If the only way in which it has been partly addressed is by
> unilateral actions of Facebook Inc. which the company takes
> because these actions are expected to further their business
> interests, then I am not satisfied about that kind of internet
> governance which puts all this power mostly into the hands of
> a single company and to some extent into the hands of the
> government of the country where the company is headquartered.
>
>> If you want to interact with FB, you are free to do so, if not, then
>> don't (and build your own thing).
>
> Suppose someone invested a lot of effort into building something
> which meeting similar communication needs as FB, but with better
> privacy properties. Network effects would likely cause this new
> thing to be very unattractive to potential early adopters because
> "everyone is on Facebook" unless sufficiently rich APIs are
> available to effectively integrate the users of facebook.com
> with the users of the new site into a single social network.
>
> Even if we assume that suitable APIs for doing this exist *now*,
> in the absence of any effective governance mechanism

Can you specify what governance mechanism you would like to see?

that takes
> adequately into account also stakeholder interests which may
> conflict with those of Facebook Inc. and the perceived interest
> of the U.S. government, the company is not in any way obligated
> to play along -- and the risk that they possibly wouldn't is
> probably enough to prevent anyone from making the above-mentioned
> investment.

But new social network pop up nearly everyday.

Both FB and Google are building entire ecosystems.  Both are built on
showing you adverts.  But both thrive by building tools so that others
can play with those tools and build new stuff.

How would you like to regulate these ecosystems?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon May 16 09:09:31 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 18:39:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] open standard for "facebook crowd" interactions
In-Reply-To: <20110516125855.5464415C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com> <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com> <20110512164515.2C1AB15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTim5HSpMaxV0nfkrdKDLDeCmCuigRQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110516125855.5464415C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <4DD1220B.9050609@itforchange.net>


On Monday 16 May 2011 06:28 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> McTim<dogwallah at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>  wrote:
>>
> Suppose someone invested a lot of effort into building something
> which meeting similar communication needs as FB, but with better
> privacy properties. Network effects would likely cause this new
> thing to be very unattractive to potential early adopters because
> "everyone is on Facebook" unless sufficiently rich APIs are
> available to effectively integrate the users of facebook.com
> with the users of the new site into a single social network.
>
> Even if we assume that suitable APIs for doing this exist *now*,
> in the absence of any effective governance mechanism that takes
> adequately into account also stakeholder interests which may
> conflict with those of Facebook Inc. and the perceived interest
> of the U.S. government, the company is not in any way obligated
> to play along -- and the risk that they possibly wouldn't is
> probably enough to prevent anyone from making the above-mentioned
Very much agree with Norbert's analysis.

There is this school of thought among many progressive techies which 
still holds that by practice alone (making better and more open 
alternatives) we can keep the Internet as we want it to be. It is time 
that we all recognised that this is not true. Neither markets, nor 
voluntary tech contributions, are enough. Public interest regulation is  
a must, and since the Internet is global, the legitimate processes and 
institutions for such regulation have to global - democratic in all ways 
- participatory, multistakeholder etc...

How this would be done is not an easy thing at all. But then we must at 
least begin to address the imperative. At least frame the 'problem' and 
start looking for the right way forward.

Parminder

> investment.
>
> 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
>
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110516/41b6a89c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110516/41b6a89c/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From nb at bollow.ch  Mon May 16 10:19:44 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:19:44 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] open standard for "facebook crowd" interactions
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTin=emJ8muv=tKS0ue9Wi6JRLUpa9Q@mail.gmail.com> (message
	from McTim on Mon, 16 May 2011 16:09:09 +0300)
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
 <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com> <20110512164515.2C1AB15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <BANLkTim5HSpMaxV0nfkrdKDLDeCmCuigRQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110516125855.5464415C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTin=emJ8muv=tKS0ue9Wi6JRLUpa9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110516141944.EA03015C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > Suppose someone invested a lot of effort into building something
> > which meets similar communication needs as FB, but with better
> > privacy properties. Network effects would likely cause this new
> > thing to be very unattractive to potential early adopters because
> > "everyone is on Facebook" unless sufficiently rich APIs are
> > available to effectively integrate the users of facebook.com
> > with the users of the new site into a single social network.
> >
> > Even if we assume that suitable APIs for doing this exist *now*,
> > in the absence of any effective governance mechanism
> 
> Can you specify what governance mechanism you would like to see?

It'd have to be one which
- does not get in the way of innovation
- allows, when innovation has happened and it has resulted in a large
  global user community with strong network effects, the creation of
  open standards that empower competing sites/services/software-vendors
  to effectively allow their users to become part of the same community
- provides mechanisms that allow forcing companies with globally
  significant market share to fully implement these standards
- provides mechanisms for updating these standards as appropriate
- doesn't get undermined by patent issues

> > that takes
> > adequately into account also stakeholder interests which may
> > conflict with those of Facebook Inc. and the perceived interest
> > of the U.S. government, the company is not in any way obligated
> > to play along -- and the risk that they possibly wouldn't is
> > probably enough to prevent anyone from making the above-mentioned
> > investment.
> 
> But new social network pop up nearly everyday.
> 
> Both FB and Google are building entire ecosystems.  Both are built on
> showing you adverts.  But both thrive by building tools so that others
> can play with those tools and build new stuff.
> 
> How would you like to regulate these ecosystems?

I don't know. I'm right now at the stage of "it might be good to
start by recognizing that a problem exists, and to discuss it in
order to understand better what the problem consists of exactly,
how big it is, etc."

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

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

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Mon May 16 11:24:11 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 15:24:11 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGF Funding and Executive Coordinator Position Issue
Message-ID: <BANLkTikSDUnjVnzYvRTJYpQcsKjbx7kfoQ@mail.gmail.com>

I bumped into a govt participant of the IGF and during our discussions
we wandered into the issue of IGF Funding which to date stands on
cross roads as there hasn't been any funding made to the IGF support
fund by any govt or private sector or cs partner and much more stress
were the European funding commitments as was the case in the past.

This leads to the issue of hiring someone for the position of the
Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat as it is a UN procedure
to first have the funding in place before advertising an executive
level position such the EC for IGF Secretariat. This would further go
down to supporting the activities and participation that were
supported by the IGF.

This is an important concern so far as it affects the sustainability
of the IGF. This might also be an important discussion point during
the open consultation and possible mag meeting this week.

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

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

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


From avri at acm.org  Mon May 16 11:48:40 2011
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 11:48:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF Funding and Executive Coordinator Position
 Issue
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikSDUnjVnzYvRTJYpQcsKjbx7kfoQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTikSDUnjVnzYvRTJYpQcsKjbx7kfoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4E5E00A7-64A8-4887-A7AB-B854CC95EC81@acm.org>

Hi,

As I understand it, from the outside, there is a chicken and egg situation.

Many of the funders won't release the funding until they know what is happening.
And UN DESA can do much without funding.

So trust is required between UN DESA and the funding community.  And that seems in short supply.

I have no idea what they are doing about advertising the executive director position.  At the last 'MAG' meeting the DESA representative announced they would be posting a job announcement, and though I keep looking for it, I have not seen it.  Of course I don't know if it is still their intention to post an announcement for this position.

(once i heard a rumor that they had already picked someone, but was never able to confirm that, so i figure it wasn't true.  then again who knows, when you all look up at the dais later this week there may be a shinny new  Chair and an Executive Coordinator - deus ex machina style.)


But I did understand that perhaps some funding was released for the secretariat - though of course it is impossible to be sure.

This issues seems like an excellent topic to bring up in the open consultations.

a.



On 16 May 2011, at 11:24, Fouad Bajwa wrote:

> I bumped into a govt participant of the IGF and during our discussions
> we wandered into the issue of IGF Funding which to date stands on
> cross roads as there hasn't been any funding made to the IGF support
> fund by any govt or private sector or cs partner and much more stress
> were the European funding commitments as was the case in the past.
> 
> This leads to the issue of hiring someone for the position of the
> Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat as it is a UN procedure
> to first have the funding in place before advertising an executive
> level position such the EC for IGF Secretariat. This would further go
> down to supporting the activities and participation that were
> supported by the IGF.
> 
> This is an important concern so far as it affects the sustainability
> of the IGF. This might also be an important discussion point during
> the open consultation and possible mag meeting this week.
> 
> -- 
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Mon May 16 11:55:36 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 11:55:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF Funding and Executive Coordinator Position
 Issue
In-Reply-To: <4E5E00A7-64A8-4887-A7AB-B854CC95EC81@acm.org>
References: <BANLkTikSDUnjVnzYvRTJYpQcsKjbx7kfoQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E5E00A7-64A8-4887-A7AB-B854CC95EC81@acm.org>
Message-ID: <72F89F44-9B6F-49FB-BC4D-260ED32E9B9B@ella.com>

below in the 6th sentence : I mean executive coordinator position.

a.

On 16 May 2011, at 11:48, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> As I understand it, from the outside, there is a chicken and egg situation.
> 
> Many of the funders won't release the funding until they know what is happening.
> And UN DESA can do much without funding.
> 
> So trust is required between UN DESA and the funding community.  And that seems in short supply.
> 
> I have no idea what they are doing about advertising the executive director position.  At the last 'MAG' meeting the DESA representative announced they would be posting a job announcement, and though I keep looking for it, I have not seen it.  Of course I don't know if it is still their intention to post an announcement for this position.
> 
> (once i heard a rumor that they had already picked someone, but was never able to confirm that, so i figure it wasn't true.  then again who knows, when you all look up at the dais later this week there may be a shinny new  Chair and an Executive Coordinator - deus ex machina style.)
> 
> 
> But I did understand that perhaps some funding was released for the secretariat - though of course it is impossible to be sure.
> 
> This issues seems like an excellent topic to bring up in the open consultations.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 16 May 2011, at 11:24, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> 
>> I bumped into a govt participant of the IGF and during our discussions
>> we wandered into the issue of IGF Funding which to date stands on
>> cross roads as there hasn't been any funding made to the IGF support
>> fund by any govt or private sector or cs partner and much more stress
>> were the European funding commitments as was the case in the past.
>> 
>> This leads to the issue of hiring someone for the position of the
>> Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat as it is a UN procedure
>> to first have the funding in place before advertising an executive
>> level position such the EC for IGF Secretariat. This would further go
>> down to supporting the activities and participation that were
>> supported by the IGF.
>> 
>> This is an important concern so far as it affects the sustainability
>> of the IGF. This might also be an important discussion point during
>> the open consultation and possible mag meeting this week.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Regards.
>> --------------------------
>> Fouad
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Mon May 16 12:00:35 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:00:35 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGF Funding and Executive Coordinator Position
 Issue
In-Reply-To: <4E5E00A7-64A8-4887-A7AB-B854CC95EC81@acm.org>
References: <BANLkTikSDUnjVnzYvRTJYpQcsKjbx7kfoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E5E00A7-64A8-4887-A7AB-B854CC95EC81@acm.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTin5zmv4FCi1aPEC=B=eCnUZOBeA=A@mail.gmail.com>

As I heard from the this rep that was also part of the CSTD WG, he
might be gathering the working group members and other participants
present in Geneva to discuss this issue.

I have also heard a very strong rumor last month that some funding may
have reached the IGF Secretariat but I don't know if this has just to
do with the management affairs of the secretariat or is an overall IGF
programme support.

The govt rep had a discussion with Fredrich from the Swiss gov and so
this is a confirmed that the Executive Coordinator position was never
advertised since the budget simply isn't there to advertise such an
executive position against.

Yes, it definitely remains a very key discussion point for both
participants in geneva and that will be present remotely to raise this
issue for concrete clarification because otherwise this weakens many
things for the sustainability of the IGF.



On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I understand it, from the outside, there is a chicken and egg situation.
>
> Many of the funders won't release the funding until they know what is happening.
> And UN DESA can do much without funding.
>
> So trust is required between UN DESA and the funding community.  And that seems in short supply.
>
> I have no idea what they are doing about advertising the executive director position.  At the last 'MAG' meeting the DESA representative announced they would be posting a job announcement, and though I keep looking for it, I have not seen it.  Of course I don't know if it is still their intention to post an announcement for this position.
>
> (once i heard a rumor that they had already picked someone, but was never able to confirm that, so i figure it wasn't true.  then again who knows, when you all look up at the dais later this week there may be a shinny new  Chair and an Executive Coordinator - deus ex machina style.)
>
>
> But I did understand that perhaps some funding was released for the secretariat - though of course it is impossible to be sure.
>
> This issues seems like an excellent topic to bring up in the open consultations.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 16 May 2011, at 11:24, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>
>> I bumped into a govt participant of the IGF and during our discussions
>> we wandered into the issue of IGF Funding which to date stands on
>> cross roads as there hasn't been any funding made to the IGF support
>> fund by any govt or private sector or cs partner and much more stress
>> were the European funding commitments as was the case in the past.
>>
>> This leads to the issue of hiring someone for the position of the
>> Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat as it is a UN procedure
>> to first have the funding in place before advertising an executive
>> level position such the EC for IGF Secretariat. This would further go
>> down to supporting the activities and participation that were
>> supported by the IGF.
>>
>> This is an important concern so far as it affects the sustainability
>> of the IGF. This might also be an important discussion point during
>> the open consultation and possible mag meeting this week.
>>
>> --
>> Regards.
>> --------------------------
>> Fouad
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



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

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

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


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon May 16 14:06:47 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 06:06:47 +1200
Subject: [governance] open standard for "facebook crowd" interactions
In-Reply-To: <20110516141944.EA03015C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
	<C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110512164515.2C1AB15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BANLkTim5HSpMaxV0nfkrdKDLDeCmCuigRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110516125855.5464415C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BANLkTin=emJ8muv=tKS0ue9Wi6JRLUpa9Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110516141944.EA03015C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTin8kRMnJHheCqywKsvgJ4unDGceSQ@mail.gmail.com>

I am finding that I have problems with Linkedin sending invites to
people on my contact list without my initiating it and also taking all
of my contacts in my email space.  I find this disturbing and an
invasion of my privacy.

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> > Suppose someone invested a lot of effort into building something
>> > which meets similar communication needs as FB, but with better
>> > privacy properties. Network effects would likely cause this new
>> > thing to be very unattractive to potential early adopters because
>> > "everyone is on Facebook" unless sufficiently rich APIs are
>> > available to effectively integrate the users of facebook.com
>> > with the users of the new site into a single social network.
>> >
>> > Even if we assume that suitable APIs for doing this exist *now*,
>> > in the absence of any effective governance mechanism
>>
>> Can you specify what governance mechanism you would like to see?
>
> It'd have to be one which
> - does not get in the way of innovation
> - allows, when innovation has happened and it has resulted in a large
>  global user community with strong network effects, the creation of
>  open standards that empower competing sites/services/software-vendors
>  to effectively allow their users to become part of the same community
> - provides mechanisms that allow forcing companies with globally
>  significant market share to fully implement these standards
> - provides mechanisms for updating these standards as appropriate
> - doesn't get undermined by patent issues
>
>> > that takes
>> > adequately into account also stakeholder interests which may
>> > conflict with those of Facebook Inc. and the perceived interest
>> > of the U.S. government, the company is not in any way obligated
>> > to play along -- and the risk that they possibly wouldn't is
>> > probably enough to prevent anyone from making the above-mentioned
>> > investment.
>>
>> But new social network pop up nearly everyday.
>>
>> Both FB and Google are building entire ecosystems.  Both are built on
>> showing you adverts.  But both thrive by building tools so that others
>> can play with those tools and build new stuff.
>>
>> How would you like to regulate these ecosystems?
>
> I don't know. I'm right now at the stage of "it might be good to
> start by recognizing that a problem exists, and to discuss it in
> order to understand better what the problem consists of exactly,
> how big it is, etc."
>
> 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
>
>



-- 
Sala

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

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

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


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Mon May 16 15:57:02 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:57:02 -0300
Subject: [governance] Remote participation during Open Consultations
Message-ID: <BANLkTik=5uHA_H582NBa3h=2+=_4rAFmNQ@mail.gmail.com>

The Secretariat has published on IGF website information about remote
participation during Open Consultations. I do not know if the same applies
for MAG meeting, and I don't know if they will be ready to bring in MAG
members to speak live through Adobe connect. This would be very important,
given that funding for developing country representatives has not been
provided. I will try to find out something about this and will let you know.
As far as I know, registration is required, so maybe it is a good idea to
test the platform in advance.
Best,
Marília

*Remote participation*

   - Remote participation will be available via the ITU's Adobe Connect:
   http://itu.adobeconnect.com/wsisgoverning_body_room/
   - More information is available at:
   http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/About/RemoteParticipation.aspx
   - Remote participants can also send their contributions via email to
   mayconsultations [at] intgovforum.org
   - Realtime Transcription will also be available.



-- 
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/20110516/c2bfdb99/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 andersj at elon.edu  Mon May 16 16:30:54 2011
From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:30:54 -0400
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <C9F701BE.284E9%andersj@elon.edu>

White House releases US ³International Strategy for Cyberspace,² signed by
the president. 

Full report in PDF - http://1.usa.gov/luaJv7 - Blog post -
http://1.usa.gov/jn4hIF

Shout-out for IGF on page 22 of the PDF ­ here¹s the excerpt:

€    Promote and enhance multi-stakeholder venues for the discussion of
Internet governance issues. The very architecture of the Internet embodies a
mode of social and technical organization which is decentralized,
cooperative, and layered. Each of these characteristics is fundamental to
the benefits the Internet has brought. That architecture fuels the freedom
of innovation that enables economic growth It fuels the freedom of
expression and association that enables social and political growth and the
functioning of democratic societies worldwide. The United States stands firm
in our conviction that when the international community meets to discuss the
range of Internet governance issues, these conversations must take place in
a multi-stakeholder manner; we will continue to support successful venues
like the Internet Governance Forum, which embodies the open and inclusive
nature of the Internet itself by allowing nongovernment stakeholders to
contribute to the discussion on equal footing with governments.

Janna

-- 
Janna Quitney Anderson
Director of Imagining the Internet
www.imaginingtheinternet.org

Associate Professor
School of Communications
Elon University
andersj at elon.edu
(336) 278-5733 (o)




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110516/44f3af42/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 May 16 14:42:33 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:42:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] open standard for "facebook crowd" interactions; &
 WiGiT 6.24 & 10.18
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79C2D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Parminder,

Agreed open specs alone will not solve problems, but the ideas being discussed onthe list are nonetheless of value.

But they may be very helpful in shaping behaviors, and even influencing legislation/regulation.

For example, due to the breaches of privacy expectations of users by serial offenders Google, Facebook, and now mobile apps developers,  it feels like for the first time in US history there - may - be a general privacy law passed. OK, 2nd time if we want to quibble, but limitations of ECPA are wide.

So yes more legislation is coming; as is (some) regulation. 

Defining at global level is of course far far more challenging still than getting meaningful legislation through eg a politically divided US Congress.

Returning to open specs for a moment, now is perhaps opportune time to mention 9th WiGiT June 24 9-11am meeting/webconference; and 11th WiGiT, October 18, exact time tbd.

But the venue and place is known: TEDxHarlem, Apollo Theater, New York City. 

As you are aware, Internet Rights and Principles will be discussed in a separate session at TEDxHarlem.

If (some) folks want to jump in and help develop privacy and data-re-use specs for WiGiT, and more broadly for sharing - information, data, devices, network, content, applications and services including cloud services; the 6.24 webconference would be a good time to join in. Since by 10.24 Version 1.0 open specs will be announced, with as extensive hook for - your concerns - as  - you all define.

Lee

PS: WiGiT is a Virtual Organization and hence neither here nor there. We will be posting docs describing how folks/organizations can self-subscribe to WiGiT, by June 1st, at http://wglab.net 


________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 9:09 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] open standard for "facebook crowd" interactions

On Monday 16 May 2011 06:28 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com><mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:


On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch><mailto:nb at bollow.ch> wrote:



Suppose someone invested a lot of effort into building something
which meeting similar communication needs as FB, but with better
privacy properties. Network effects would likely cause this new
thing to be very unattractive to potential early adopters because
"everyone is on Facebook" unless sufficiently rich APIs are
available to effectively integrate the users of facebook.com
with the users of the new site into a single social network.

Even if we assume that suitable APIs for doing this exist *now*,
in the absence of any effective governance mechanism that takes
adequately into account also stakeholder interests which may
conflict with those of Facebook Inc. and the perceived interest
of the U.S. government, the company is not in any way obligated
to play along -- and the risk that they possibly wouldn't is
probably enough to prevent anyone from making the above-mentioned


Very much agree with Norbert's analysis.

There is this school of thought among many progressive techies which still holds that by practice alone (making better and more open alternatives) we can keep the Internet as we want it to be. It is time that we all recognised that this is not true. Neither markets, nor voluntary tech contributions, are enough. Public interest regulation is  a must, and since the Internet is global, the legitimate processes and institutions for such regulation have to global - democratic in all ways - participatory, multistakeholder etc...

How this would be done is not an easy thing at all. But then we must at least begin to address the imperative. At least frame the 'problem' and start looking for the right way forward.

Parminder


investment.

Greetings,
Norbert
____________________________________________________________
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




--

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net<http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
[cid:part1.01060204.00080308 at itforchange.net]


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

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

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


From odamyte at gmail.com  Mon May 16 19:11:08 2011
From: odamyte at gmail.com (Jacob B. Odame)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 23:11:08 +0000
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <C9F701BE.284E9%andersj@elon.edu>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>
	<C9F701BE.284E9%andersj@elon.edu>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimFLrWrS79GFYTq5h8tL_u2VYBnzQ@mail.gmail.com>

This is great news. I am happy about the US's commitment to seeing a
multistaholder approach to internet governance deliberations. My only advice
to developed nations or so-called G8 is not just pay lip service but show
deep commitment by walking the talk and not use any different approaches
such as the e-G8 meeting. Anyway this document signed by the US president is
something we can make meaningful references to in case they try to act
otherwise.

Cheers!
Jacob

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Janna Anderson <andersj at elon.edu> wrote:

>  White House releases US “International Strategy for Cyberspace,” signed
> by the president.
>
> Full report in PDF - http://1.usa.gov/luaJv7 - Blog post -
> http://1.usa.gov/jn4hIF
>
> Shout-out for IGF on page 22 of the PDF – here’s the excerpt:
>
> •    Promote and enhance multi-stakeholder venues for the discussion of
> Internet governance issues. The very architecture of the Internet embodies
> a mode of social and technical organization which is decentralized,
> cooperative, and layered. Each of these characteristics is fundamental to
> the benefits the Internet has brought. That architecture fuels the freedom
> of innovation that enables economic growth It fuels the freedom of
> expression and association that enables social and political growth and the
> functioning of democratic societies worldwide. The United States stands firm
> in our conviction that when the international community meets to discuss the
> range of Internet governance issues, these conversations must take place in
> a multi-stakeholder manner; we will continue to support successful venues
> like the Internet Governance Forum, which embodies the open and inclusive
> nature of the Internet itself by allowing nongovernment stakeholders to
> contribute to the discussion on equal footing with governments.
>
> Janna
>
> --
> Janna Quitney Anderson
> Director of Imagining the Internet
> www.imaginingtheinternet.org
>
> Associate Professor
> School of Communications
> Elon University
> andersj at elon.edu
> (336) 278-5733 (o)
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>


-- 
Jacob B.Odame
http://www.linkedin.com/in/peejake
http://twitter.com/peejake
Blog: http://ict4dfootprint.wordpress.com/
Skype: peejake
Ph(Ghana): +233 24 2505043
Phone(US):+1-740-591-6681
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110516/60a44569/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 uzh.ch  Tue May 17 00:25:04 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 06:25:04 +0200
Subject: [governance] Reminder: WSIS Forum workshop on Institutional Choice
 in Global Communications Governance
In-Reply-To: <B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com> <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com> <B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <863795A4-7EED-4B37-916A-DF67E7BBE47F@uzh.ch>

May be of interest also in light of the White House report…starts in 2 1/2 hours, 9am CET.

http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Agenda.aspx?event=event_41

http://itu.adobeconnect.com/wsisgoverning_body_room/


--Please note new email address--

***************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch
www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake
www.williamdrake.org
****************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110517/af78cd8a/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  Tue May 17 00:52:13 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 00:52:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimFLrWrS79GFYTq5h8tL_u2VYBnzQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>
	<C9F701BE.284E9%andersj@elon.edu>,<BANLkTimFLrWrS79GFYTq5h8tL_u2VYBnzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79C4C@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

A scan of US cyberpolicy is interesting to see US relative priorities circa 2011.

1st note  document title:  "Prosperity, Security, and Openness in a Networked World" 

It's still about the money first and foremost.

2nd note 'open' is repeated, in its various meanings, throughout. But not a peep about 'network neutrality' that my late night scan of doc caught. Although 'practices outside bounds of acceptable network management' is used once in reference to government interference in net traffic; ie in political but not clearly economic/anti-competitive senses.

Lee



________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jacob B. Odame [odamyte at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 7:11 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Janna Anderson
Subject: Re: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter

This is great news. I am happy about the US's commitment to seeing a multistaholder approach to internet governance deliberations. My only advice to developed nations or so-called G8 is not just pay lip service but show deep commitment by walking the talk and not use any different approaches such as the e-G8 meeting. Anyway this document signed by the US president is something we can make meaningful references to in case they try to act otherwise.

Cheers!
Jacob

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Janna Anderson <andersj at elon.edu<mailto:andersj at elon.edu>> wrote:
White House releases US “International Strategy for Cyberspace,” signed by the president.

Full report in PDF - http://1.usa.gov/luaJv7 - Blog post - http://1.usa.gov/jn4hIF

Shout-out for IGF on page 22 of the PDF – here’s the excerpt:

•    Promote and enhance multi-stakeholder venues for the discussion of Internet governance issues. The very architecture of the Internet embodies a mode of social and technical organization which is decentralized, cooperative, and layered. Each of these characteristics is fundamental to the benefits the Internet has brought. That architecture fuels the freedom of innovation that enables economic growth It fuels the freedom of expression and association that enables social and political growth and the functioning of democratic societies worldwide. The United States stands firm in our conviction that when the international community meets to discuss the range of Internet governance issues, these conversations must take place in a multi-stakeholder manner; we will continue to support successful venues like the Internet Governance Forum, which embodies the open and inclusive nature of the Internet itself by allowing nongovernment stakeholders to contribute to the discussion on equal footing with governments.

Janna

--
Janna Quitney Anderson
Director of Imagining the Internet
www.imaginingtheinternet.org<http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org>

Associate Professor
School of Communications
Elon University
andersj at elon.edu<http://andersj at elon.edu>
(336) 278-5733<tel:%28336%29%20278-5733> (o)




____________________________________________________________
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





--
Jacob B.Odame
http://www.linkedin.com/in/peejake
http://twitter.com/peejake
Blog: http://ict4dfootprint.wordpress.com/
Skype: peejake
Ph(Ghana): +233 24 2505043
Phone(US):+1-740-591-6681

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

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

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


From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng  Tue May 17 01:31:54 2011
From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 06:31:54 +0100
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimAtzt-hNHw5wSWmd7-it++oXDzyg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>
	<C9F701BE.284E9%andersj@elon.edu>
	<BANLkTimFLrWrS79GFYTq5h8tL_u2VYBnzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79C4C@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<BANLkTinXB+uLHQaxMJt-xbGjeKSHGjh+aw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimAtzt-hNHw5wSWmd7-it++oXDzyg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimh1SDGAGYHySKzKRVQQ7Lphk8H-A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

I believe the US and other G-8 will keep and align to the document sign by
the US President. It is time that positive actions are taken towards
commitments as being considered for global issues among the
multistakeholders rather than lip services of the past. I know someone must
have the political WILL to get commitments move fast along the road and
around the globe.

Sonigitu

On 17 May 2011 05:52, "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

A scan of US cyberpolicy is interesting to see US relative priorities circa
2011.

1st note  document title:  "Prosperity, Security, and Openness in a
Networked World"

It's still about the money first and foremost.

2nd note 'open' is repeated, in its various meanings, throughout. But not a
peep about 'network neutrality' that my late night scan of doc caught.
Although 'practices outside bounds of acceptable network management' is used
once in reference to government interference in net traffic; ie in political
but not clearly economic/anti-competitive senses.

Lee



________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of
Jacob B. Odame [odamyte at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 7:11 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Janna Anderson
Subject: Re: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter


This is great news. I am happy about the US's commitment to seeing a
multistaholder approach to int...

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Janna Anderson <andersj at elon.edu<mailto:
andersj at elon.edu>> wrote:
W...
www.imaginingtheinternet.org<http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org>


Associate Professor
School of Communications
Elon University
andersj at elon.edu<http://andersj at elon.edu>
(336) 278-5733<tel:%28336%29%20278-5733> (o)





____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subs...
   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 in...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110517/703a67c9/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 ofdral at gmail.com  Tue May 17 03:33:33 2011
From: ofdral at gmail.com (Dan Ofori)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 07:33:33 +0000
Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimh1SDGAGYHySKzKRVQQ7Lphk8H-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCCDB89.4050202@ciroap.org>
	<C9F701BE.284E9%andersj@elon.edu>
	<BANLkTimFLrWrS79GFYTq5h8tL_u2VYBnzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79C4C@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<BANLkTinXB+uLHQaxMJt-xbGjeKSHGjh+aw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimAtzt-hNHw5wSWmd7-it++oXDzyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimh1SDGAGYHySKzKRVQQ7Lphk8H-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikuCnUMrjiu9pyUMcPiV9cF-zvUnQ@mail.gmail.com>

It's a step in the right directions and the captions "Prosperity, Security,
and Openness in a Networked World" will be a road map for many for a time to
come.

Regards
Daniel

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Sonigitu Ekpe <
sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I believe the US and other G-8 will keep and align to the document sign by
> the US President. It is time that positive actions are taken towards
> commitments as being considered for global issues among the
> multistakeholders rather than lip services of the past. I know someone must
> have the political WILL to get commitments move fast along the road and
> around the globe.
>
> Sonigitu
>
> On 17 May 2011 05:52, "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> A scan of US cyberpolicy is interesting to see US relative priorities circa
> 2011.
>
> 1st note  document title:  "Prosperity, Security, and Openness in a
> Networked World"
>
> It's still about the money first and foremost.
>
> 2nd note 'open' is repeated, in its various meanings, throughout. But not a
> peep about 'network neutrality' that my late night scan of doc caught.
> Although 'practices outside bounds of acceptable network management' is used
> once in reference to government interference in net traffic; ie in political
> but not clearly economic/anti-competitive senses.
>
> Lee
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of
> Jacob B. Odame [odamyte at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 7:11 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Janna Anderson
> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of consensus call on Sarkozy letter
>
>
> This is great news. I am happy about the US's commitment to seeing a
> multistaholder approach to int...
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Janna Anderson <andersj at elon.edu<mailto:
> andersj at elon.edu>> wrote:
> W...
>
> www.imaginingtheinternet.org<http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org>
>
>
> Associate Professor
> School of Communications
> Elon University
> andersj at elon.edu<http://andersj at elon.edu>
> (336) 278-5733<tel:%28336%29%20278-5733> (o)
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subs...
>    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 in...
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Ofori
Accra,Ghana
(T:)+233-244-730989
(E:) ofdral at gmail.com
skype: ofdral
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110517/83a2811d/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 acm.org  Tue May 17 03:34:51 2011
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 03:34:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] Reminder: WSIS Forum workshop on Institutional
 Choice in Global Communications Governance
In-Reply-To: <863795A4-7EED-4B37-916A-DF67E7BBE47F@uzh.ch>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com> <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com> <B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch> <863795A4-7EED-4B37-916A-DF67E7BBE47F@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <D0C15763-8261-4317-8202-75A5200948EE@acm.org>



I tried, got up at 3am for it, but it doesn't seem to work.

a.

On 17 May 2011, at 00:25, William Drake wrote:

> May be of interest also in light of the White House report…starts in 2 1/2 hours, 9am CET.
> 
> http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Agenda.aspx?event=event_41
> 
> http://itu.adobeconnect.com/wsisgoverning_body_room/
> 
> 
> --Please note new email address--
> 
> ***************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch
> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake
> www.williamdrake.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 william.drake at uzh.ch  Tue May 17 04:47:59 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:47:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] Reminder: WSIS Forum workshop on Institutional
 Choice in Global Communications Governance
In-Reply-To: <D0C15763-8261-4317-8202-75A5200948EE@acm.org>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com> <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com> <B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch> <863795A4-7EED-4B37-916A-DF67E7BBE47F@uzh.ch> <D0C15763-8261-4317-8202-75A5200948EE@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4A62DD40-AAB0-4771-AE58-3391111E3D1E@uzh.ch>

Happily, while ITU had sound problems for awhile they fixed it and your question was read to the panel.

BD

On May 17, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> 
> I tried, got up at 3am for it, but it doesn't seem to work.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 17 May 2011, at 00:25, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> May be of interest also in light of the White House report…starts in 2 1/2 hours, 9am CET.
>> 
>> http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Agenda.aspx?event=event_41
>> 
>> http://itu.adobeconnect.com/wsisgoverning_body_room/
>> 
>> 
>> --Please note new email address--

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

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

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


From avri at acm.org  Tue May 17 05:01:43 2011
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 05:01:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] Reminder: WSIS Forum workshop on Institutional
 Choice in Global Communications Governance
In-Reply-To: <4A62DD40-AAB0-4771-AE58-3391111E3D1E@uzh.ch>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com> <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com> <B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch> <863795A4-7EED-4B37-916A-DF67E7BBE47F@uzh.ch> <D0C15763-8261-4317-8202-75A5200948EE@acm.org> <4A62DD40-AAB0-4771-AE58-3391111E3D1E@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <34C8B20F-21EB-434B-B2DD-F8B11F29D3D6@acm.org>

Hi,

Yep, I had actually gone back to bed when all of a sudden the sound started booming at me.  They do need to fix the quality, it remained hard to understand and they should allow for remote participants to actually raise their hands, and use our mikes to ask our questions.

But it did sort of work in the end.

a.

On 17 May 2011, at 04:47, William Drake wrote:

> Happily, while ITU had sound problems for awhile they fixed it and your question was read to the panel.
> 
> BD
> 
> On May 17, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> I tried, got up at 3am for it, but it doesn't seem to work.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 17 May 2011, at 00:25, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>>> May be of interest also in light of the White House report…starts in 2 1/2 hours, 9am CET.
>>> 
>>> http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Agenda.aspx?event=event_41
>>> 
>>> http://itu.adobeconnect.com/wsisgoverning_body_room/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --Please note new email address--
> 
> 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Tue May 17 09:57:57 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 15:57:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] Reminder: WSIS Forum workshop on Institutional
 Choice in Global Communications Governance
In-Reply-To: <34C8B20F-21EB-434B-B2DD-F8B11F29D3D6@acm.org>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com> <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com> <B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch> <863795A4-7EED-4B37-916A-DF67E7BBE47F@uzh.ch> <D0C15763-8261-4317-8202-75A5200948EE@acm.org> <4A62DD40-AAB0-4771-AE58-3391111E3D1E@uzh.ch> <34C8B20F-21EB-434B-B2DD-F8B11F29D3D6@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4DD27EE5.704@apc.org>

Thanks for your question Avri.. I hope my response made some kind of
sense :)

For the record, Avri asked: Who defines the public interest in IG?

Interesting, difficult, and very important question.

It was a useful discussion.. thanks for pulling this workshop together,
Bill, and Avri.. HUGE THANK YOU for getting up so early to be there with us.

Anriette


On 17/05/11 11:01, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Yep, I had actually gone back to bed when all of a sudden the sound started booming at me.  They do need to fix the quality, it remained hard to understand and they should allow for remote participants to actually raise their hands, and use our mikes to ask our questions.
> 
> But it did sort of work in the end.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 17 May 2011, at 04:47, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> Happily, while ITU had sound problems for awhile they fixed it and your question was read to the panel.
>>
>> BD
>>
>> On May 17, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I tried, got up at 3am for it, but it doesn't seem to work.
>>>
>>> a.
>>>
>>> On 17 May 2011, at 00:25, William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>>> May be of interest also in light of the White House report…starts in 2 1/2 hours, 9am CET.
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Agenda.aspx?event=event_41
>>>>
>>>> http://itu.adobeconnect.com/wsisgoverning_body_room/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Please note new email address--
>>
>>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue May 17 10:07:03 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 16:07:03 +0200
Subject: [governance] Reminder: WSIS Forum workshop on Institutional
 Choice in Global Communications Governance
In-Reply-To: <D0C15763-8261-4317-8202-75A5200948EE@acm.org>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com> <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com> <B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch> <863795A4-7EED-4B37-916A-DF67E7BBE47F@uzh.ch> <D0C15763-8261-4317-8202-75A5200948EE@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4DD28107.7000304@wzb.eu>



Am 17.05.2011 09:34, schrieb Avri Doria:
>
>
> I tried, got up at 3am for it, but it doesn't seem to work.

Avri, you are a hero!

jeanette
>
> a.
>
> On 17 May 2011, at 00:25, William Drake wrote:
>
>> May be of interest also in light of the White House report…starts in 2 1/2 hours, 9am CET.
>>
>> http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Agenda.aspx?event=event_41
>>
>> http://itu.adobeconnect.com/wsisgoverning_body_room/
>>
>>
>> --Please note new email address--
>>
>> ***************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow
>> Media Change&  Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake
>> www.williamdrake.org
>> ****************************************************
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue May 17 11:39:40 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 12:39:40 -0300
Subject: [governance] Reminder: WSIS Forum workshop on Institutional
 Choice in Global Communications Governance
In-Reply-To: <4DD28107.7000304@wzb.eu>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com>
	<B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch>
	<863795A4-7EED-4B37-916A-DF67E7BBE47F@uzh.ch>
	<D0C15763-8261-4317-8202-75A5200948EE@acm.org>
	<4DD28107.7000304@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=5MOXytXKY6dq0de-5AK8rVKtEyw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Bill, do you know if (and where) we can find transcripts of this
session? I was on my way to geneva, so unfortunately missed it.
If no transcripts are available, could you share with us some key ideas?

Thanks!
Marília

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

>
>
> Am 17.05.2011 09:34, schrieb Avri Doria:
>
>
>>
>> I tried, got up at 3am for it, but it doesn't seem to work.
>>
>
> Avri, you are a hero!
>
> jeanette
>
>
>> a.
>>
>> On 17 May 2011, at 00:25, William Drake wrote:
>>
>>  May be of interest also in light of the White House report…starts in 2
>>> 1/2 hours, 9am CET.
>>>
>>> http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Agenda.aspx?event=event_41
>>>
>>> http://itu.adobeconnect.com/wsisgoverning_body_room/
>>>
>>>
>>> --Please note new email address--
>>>
>>> ***************************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> International Fellow
>>> Media Change&  Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>>> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake
>>> www.williamdrake.org
>>> ****************************************************
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
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/20110517/9b441ad1/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 ella.com  Tue May 17 12:06:46 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 12:06:46 -0400
Subject: [governance] Reminder: WSIS Forum workshop on Institutional
 Choice in Global Communications Governance
In-Reply-To: <4DD27EE5.704@apc.org>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com> <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com> <B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch> <863795A4-7EED-4B37-916A-DF67E7BBE47F@uzh.ch> <D0C15763-8261-4317-8202-75A5200948EE@acm.org> <4A62DD40-AAB0-4771-AE58-3391111E3D1E@uzh.ch> <34C8B20F-21EB-434B-B2DD-F8B11F29D3D6@acm.org> <4DD27EE5.704@apc.org>
Message-ID: <1A46176A-1AB7-4FA0-81C4-315DD0DF1E87@ella.com>

Hi,

Yes, I think your answer made sense.  The question was a reaction to the near constant appropriation we hear from the Governments that it is somehow their task, role and responsibility.  And I think that is what I had caught from one of the other speakers (it was hard to hear sometimes) that prompted me to ask it.

I like the way you not only included the stakeholders, which was my thought, but included the idea that we had to go beyond the stakeholders who were at the table to include the concerns and interests those who weren't there, like indigenous populations.  Something that I think of as being one of the contributions of Civil Society (and certainly of groups like APC).

So yeah, it was a good answer, but it a discussion I would like to see more of.  I cannot count the times that someone, usually from Private Sector or the Internet Technical Community poo-pooing the idea of global public interest and saying that until someone can define it, it does not really exist.  That compounded with the presumption of government's saying it was theirs to define really provokes me to want to make if a multistakeholder+ discussion.

So thanks.

a.

ps.

On 17 May 2011, at 10:07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> Am 17.05.2011 09:34, schrieb Avri Doria:
>> 
>> 
>> I tried, got up at 3am for it, but it doesn't seem to work.
> 
> Avri, you are a hero!

Hero? 
I do not think so. 
I set my alarm, it went off, i got up. 

What i am, is someone who whinges when i wake up for something and it doesn't seem to be happening.

> 


On 17 May 2011, at 09:57, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

> Thanks for your question Avri.. I hope my response made some kind of
> sense :)
> 
> For the record, Avri asked: Who defines the public interest in IG?
> 
> Interesting, difficult, and very important question.
> 
> It was a useful discussion.. thanks for pulling this workshop together,
> Bill, and Avri.. HUGE THANK YOU for getting up so early to be there with us.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> On 17/05/11 11:01, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Yep, I had actually gone back to bed when all of a sudden the sound started booming at me.  They do need to fix the quality, it remained hard to understand and they should allow for remote participants to actually raise their hands, and use our mikes to ask our questions.
>> 
>> But it did sort of work in the end.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 17 May 2011, at 04:47, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>>> Happily, while ITU had sound problems for awhile they fixed it and your question was read to the panel.
>>> 
>>> BD
>>> 
>>> On May 17, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I tried, got up at 3am for it, but it doesn't seem to work.
>>>> 
>>>> a.
>>>> 
>>>> On 17 May 2011, at 00:25, William Drake wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> May be of interest also in light of the White House report…starts in 2 1/2 hours, 9am CET.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Agenda.aspx?event=event_41
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://itu.adobeconnect.com/wsisgoverning_body_room/
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --Please note new email address--
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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


From carolinaaguerre at gmail.com  Tue May 17 12:37:02 2011
From: carolinaaguerre at gmail.com (Carolina Aguerre)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 13:37:02 -0300
Subject: [governance] Reminder: WSIS Forum workshop on Institutional
 Choice in Global Communications Governance
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=5MOXytXKY6dq0de-5AK8rVKtEyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com>
	<B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch>
	<863795A4-7EED-4B37-916A-DF67E7BBE47F@uzh.ch>
	<D0C15763-8261-4317-8202-75A5200948EE@acm.org>
	<4DD28107.7000304@wzb.eu>
	<BANLkTi=5MOXytXKY6dq0de-5AK8rVKtEyw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTin6qmWYh690cOqQLp30DjabDQxn7Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Bill

I would also like to see transcripts where possible. I could not connect via
the adobe application (I guess it was my fault as I tried it in my pc at
university but not from my laptop at home last week). In the end I could
follow it through webcast. Thanks for organizing this and help maintaining
governance issues alive at WSIS.
Best,
Carolina

--------
Carolina Aguerre
Centro de Tecnología y Sociedad
Universidad de San Andrés
www.udesa.edu.ar
aguerre at udesa.edu.ar

2011/5/17 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>

> Hello Bill, do you know if (and where) we can find transcripts of this
> session? I was on my way to geneva, so unfortunately missed it.
> If no transcripts are available, could you share with us some key ideas?
>
> Thanks!
> Marília
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 17.05.2011 09:34, schrieb Avri Doria:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I tried, got up at 3am for it, but it doesn't seem to work.
>>>
>>
>> Avri, you are a hero!
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>>> a.
>>>
>>> On 17 May 2011, at 00:25, William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>> May be of interest also in light of the White House report…starts in 2
>>>> 1/2 hours, 9am CET.
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Agenda.aspx?event=event_41
>>>>
>>>> http://itu.adobeconnect.com/wsisgoverning_body_room/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Please note new email address--
>>>>
>>>> ***************************************************
>>>> William J. Drake
>>>> International Fellow
>>>> Media Change&  Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>>>> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake
>>>> www.williamdrake.org
>>>> ****************************************************
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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/20110517/ba9e65a1/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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Tue May 17 14:47:21 2011
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:47:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] Reminder: WSIS Forum workshop on Institutional
 Choice in Global Communications Governance
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=5MOXytXKY6dq0de-5AK8rVKtEyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com> <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com> <B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch> <863795A4-7EED-4B37-916A-DF67E7BBE47F@uzh.ch> <D0C15763-8261-4317-8202-75A5200948EE@acm.org> <4DD28107.7000304@wzb.eu> <BANLkTi=5MOXytXKY6dq0de-5AK8rVKtEyw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B7FC51D8-4FBA-4D3B-8812-5FF7C03B338C@post.harvard.edu>

Though delayed by a bit, the archived video is supposed to appear here.

http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201105forum/index.html

Monday and Tuesday session archives are now largely in place,  
including Bill's 'High Level' this morning.  Requires RealPlayer.

David

On May 17, 2011, at 11:39 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:

> Hello Bill, do you know if (and where) we can find transcripts of  
> this session? I was on my way to geneva, so unfortunately missed it.
> If no transcripts are available, could you share with us some key  
> ideas?
>
> Thanks!
> Marília
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>  
> wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.05.2011 09:34, schrieb Avri Doria:
>
>
>
> I tried, got up at 3am for it, but it doesn't seem to work.
>
> Avri, you are a hero!
>
> jeanette
>
>
> a.
>
> On 17 May 2011, at 00:25, William Drake wrote:
>
> May be of interest also in light of the White House report…starts in  
> 2 1/2 hours, 9am CET.
>
> http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Agenda.aspx?event=event_41
>
> http://itu.adobeconnect.com/wsisgoverning_body_room/
>
>
> --Please note new email address--
>
> ***************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow
> Media Change&  Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch
> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake
> www.williamdrake.org
> ****************************************************
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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/20110517/b478a89e/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 uzh.ch  Tue May 17 16:05:40 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 22:05:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] Reminder: WSIS Forum workshop on Institutional
 Choice in Global Communications Governance
In-Reply-To: <B7FC51D8-4FBA-4D3B-8812-5FF7C03B338C@post.harvard.edu>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com> <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com> <B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch> <863795A4-7EED-4B37-916A-DF67E7BBE47F@uzh.ch> <D0C15763-8261-4317-8202-75A5200948EE@acm.org> <4DD28107.7000304@wzb.eu> <BANLkTi=5MOXytXKY6dq0de-5AK8rVKtEyw@mail.gmail.com> <B7FC51D8-4FBA-4D3B-8812-5FF7C03B338C@post.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <69D2042B-CF80-43A2-B3E7-B29F12DAB090@uzh.ch>

The person operating the camera turned it on like 20 minutes before we started and shot out the window, then juggled the thing relentlessly, then there's about ten minutes of test pattern stuff, then more juggling followed by swooping zooming in and out, long shots of walls, then training the camera on one person and walking away while others are talking, and other techniques.  Also managed to keep shooting all the empty seats in the rows just in front of the podium (all places had national delegation placards, and people insisted on sitting wherever they were in the alphabet, in a room for like 500) so you can't tell there were about 60 people once morning coffees were finished.  I watched a for awhile and gave up. Not for the faint hearted.
 
Bill

On May 17, 2011, at 8:47 PM, David Allen wrote:

> Though delayed by a bit, the archived video is supposed to appear here.
> 
> http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201105forum/index.html
> 
> Monday and Tuesday session archives are now largely in place, including Bill's 'High Level' this morning.  Requires RealPlayer.
> 
> David
> 
> On May 17, 2011, at 11:39 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> 
>> Hello Bill, do you know if (and where) we can find transcripts of this session? I was on my way to geneva, so unfortunately missed it.
>> If no transcripts are available, could you share with us some key ideas?
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> Marília
>> 
>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Am 17.05.2011 09:34, schrieb Avri Doria:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I tried, got up at 3am for it, but it doesn't seem to work.
>> 
>> Avri, you are a hero!
>> 
>> jeanette
>> 
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 17 May 2011, at 00:25, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>> May be of interest also in light of the White House report…starts in 2 1/2 hours, 9am CET.
>> 
>> http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Agenda.aspx?event=event_41
>> 
>> http://itu.adobeconnect.com/wsisgoverning_body_room/
>> 
>> 
>> --Please note new email address--
>> 
>> ***************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow
>> Media Change&  Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake
>> www.williamdrake.org
>> ****************************************************
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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/20110517/9168354b/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 pbekono at gmail.com  Tue May 17 20:52:29 2011
From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 01:52:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] French version, IGC letter to Sarkozy
In-Reply-To: <C9F67F70.20BEF%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <C9F67F70.20BEF%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikUFyVh2O04Zj-nMf8vxTAYbwq57Q@mail.gmail.com>

Chère Divina,

C'est une parfaite traduction !

~Pascal

Le 16/05/11, Divina MEIGS<divina.meigs at orange.fr> a écrit :
> Dear all
>
> Please find below and attached the translation in French of our letter to
> President Sarkozy. I hope I haven¹t tampered much with the spirit of the
> text for the sake of style and clarity. I hope also that we can all use it
> to make our voice heard, in the appropriate quarters and venues.
>
> Best
> Divina
>
>
>
> Lettre ouverte à monsieur le président  Nicolas Sarkozy
>
> La Coalition pour la Gouvernance d¹Internet (Internet Governance Caucus) est
> un forum ouvert composé d'individus et d¹organisations issus de la société
> civile qui se sont réunis dans le contexte du Sommet Mondial sur la Société
> de l'Information (SMSI) pour promouvoir des objectifs d¹intérêt public
> mondial en ce qui concerne la mise en place de    politiques de gouvernance
> d¹Internet (voir http: // www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org> ).
>
> Nous avons appris que la Présidence française du G8 se propose de tenir une
> conférence sur l¹Internet  ‹ le « e-G8 Forum » ‹ immédiatement avant le
> sommet du G8 à Deauville, en vue de préparer  ou d¹aménager  l'ordre du jour
> du sommet du G8 en ce qui concerne les questions-clé relatives à l¹Internet
> global.   Nous avons aussi appris que  beaucoup de chefs d¹états des pays du
> G8 sont attendus pour y participer.  Cette rencontre est particulièrement
> importante puisque, par le passé, le G8 a établit l'ordre du jour mondial en
> ce qui concerne de nombreuses questions-clé, en particulier dans le domaine
> de la  société de l¹information.
>
> Nous sommes très inquiets de la façon dont le e-G8 Forum est organisé car il
> ne tient pas compte des bonnes pratiques actuelles en matière de politique
> publique.  Il jette aussi par-dessus bord le principe de participation
> multipartite qui s'est développé à l'échelle mondiale, particulièrement dans
> le secteur de la gouvernance d¹Internet. Il apparaît que le e-G8 Forum est
> organisé par le secteur privé et que l¹accès est donné aux seuls acteurs des
> entreprises privées et des gouvernements. Nous avons aussi compris qu'il y a
> un lien entre les sponsors et les invitations.
>
> Les grandes entreprises exercent déjà une influence disproportionnée sur les
> processus de politique publique. Que des gouvernements valident une
> conférence spécifique avec des leaders et des fonctionnaires de haut niveau
> pour planifier l'ordre du jour mondial concernant les politiques relatives à
> l¹Internet  est inapproprié. Ce qui est exigé ici, c¹est une discussion qui
> inclut des acteurs de la société civile, lesquels apporteront à la table des
> négociations  des préoccupations d¹intérêt public mondial émanant d¹une
> grande diversité de populations et reflétant les préoccupations de nombreux
> secteurs  sociaux.
>
> Il est aussi pertinent de déclarer ici que puisque l¹Internet est
> essentiellement un phénomène mondial, les orientations politiques
> rassemblées par les nations les plus puissantes deviendront, en toute
> probabilité, la norme mondiale par défaut. C'est plus particulièrement vrai
> pour les questions d¹architecture et d¹économie, mais l'impact global sur
> d'autres secteurs sera aussi substantiel. Il est donc approprié que les pays
> du G8 discutent de ces questions de politiques publiques de l¹Internet, et
> d¹autres, dans des forums mondiaux plus démocratiques où tous les pays sont
> présents sur un pied d¹égalité. A cet égard, le Sommet Mondial sur la
> Société de l¹Information (SMSI) a mis en place un ensemble de procédures
> pour traiter des questions urgentes liées à l¹Internet global. La
> participation multipartite est une partie importante de ces procédures
> mondiales de gouvernance. Nous considérons le e-G8 Forum comme un pas en
> arrière significatif tant pour la démocratie mondiale que pour la
> participation multipartite.
>
> Les questions auxquelles nous faisons face en ce qui concerne la gouvernance
> et le développement d¹Internet sont de nature mondiale et y trouver des
> solutions adéquates  nécessitera l¹implication de tous les pays, ainsi
> qu'une vaste gamme de représentants des intérêts de la société civile, du
> secteur privé et de la communauté technique.
>
> Nous vous demandons donc, à vous ainsi qu¹aux autres leaders du G8,  de
> faire en sorte que le e-G8 Forum  soit authentiquement multipartite, sur le
> modèle du Forum de la Gouvernance d¹Internet (FGI) de l'ONU. Nous sommes
> impressionnés par l¹appui solide des pays du G8 pour soutenir un modèle
> multipartite au FGI. Le soutien que beaucoup de pays du G8, y compris le
> vôtre, ont manifesté à cette participation multipartite large et complète au
> FGI rend la présente décision de limiter la discussion aux intérêts
> sectoriels des partenaires industriels des  gouvernements déconcertante et
> inacceptable pour notre Coalition, qui défend les intérêts de la société
> civile en matière de gouvernance d¹Internet.
>
> Veuillez agréer, monsieur le président, l'expression de nos sentiments
> distingués
>
> Jeremy Malcolm et Izumi Aizu
> Coordinateurs
> Coalition pour la Gouvernance d¹Internet
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From nb at bollow.ch  Wed May 18 04:57:43 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 10:57:43 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultations -> email participation
Message-ID: <20110518085743.4583B15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

Hi,
  could someone who is at Geneva please double-check that the
email address mayconsultations at intgovforum.org is actually
watched -- I sent a question on logistics a while back and
haven't seen any evidence of anyone reacting to it, it just
seems to have disappeared into a black hole.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR
>> COMMENTS, I THINK I'D LIKE TO PERHAPS GO FOR A BREAK

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

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

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


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed May 18 05:43:16 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 06:43:16 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultations -> email participation
In-Reply-To: <20110518085743.4583B15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20110518085743.4583B15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinAjKHbV8ZQJTN9AM=hQfzxK6i-_g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Norbert,

I have been trying to answer your e-mail for a while, but Internet
connection is terrible here.
I have forwarded your comment to the Secretariat. I dont know who is
following this e-mail.
For now, it is better to send your question through the remote participation
platform. Questions made there are being forwarded to the floor normally.

Marília

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Hi,
>  could someone who is at Geneva please double-check that the
> email address mayconsultations at intgovforum.org is actually
> watched -- I sent a question on logistics a while back and
> haven't seen any evidence of anyone reacting to it, it just
> seems to have disappeared into a black hole.
>
> >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR
> >> COMMENTS, I THINK I'D LIKE TO PERHAPS GO FOR A BREAK
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
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/20110518/d0f5723f/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  Wed May 18 06:16:15 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 12:16:15 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultations -> email participation
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinAjKHbV8ZQJTN9AM=hQfzxK6i-_g@mail.gmail.com> (message
	from Marilia Maciel on Wed, 18 May 2011 06:43:16 -0300)
References: <20110518085743.4583B15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTinAjKHbV8ZQJTN9AM=hQfzxK6i-_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110518101615.D326215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

> >  could someone who is at Geneva please double-check that the
> > email address mayconsultations at intgovforum.org is actually
> > watched
> For now, it is better to send your question through the remote participation
> platform.

For whatever reasons, this isn't working for me. (It's stuck at
"Connecting...".)

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

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

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


From y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu  Wed May 18 06:50:46 2011
From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 10:50:46 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultations -> email participation
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinAjKHbV8ZQJTN9AM=hQfzxK6i-_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Gh2eqgDE.1305715846.4649110.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu>

Dear Marilia, really sorry, but we are waiting here for bernard,do you
have problems with the remote training?

thanks,
Yuliya


Le 18/5/2011, "Marilia Maciel" <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> a écrit:

>Hi Norbert,
>
>I have been trying to answer your e-mail for a while, but Internet
>connection is terrible here.
>I have forwarded your comment to the Secretariat. I dont know who is
>following this e-mail.
>For now, it is better to send your question through the remote participation
>platform. Questions made there are being forwarded to the floor normally.
>
>Marília
>
>On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>  could someone who is at Geneva please double-check that the
>> email address mayconsultations at intgovforum.org is actually
>> watched -- I sent a question on logistics a while back and
>> haven't seen any evidence of anyone reacting to it, it just
>> seems to have disappeared into a black hole.
>>
>> >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR
>> >> COMMENTS, I THINK I'D LIKE TO PERHAPS GO FOR A BREAK
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>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  Wed May 18 07:34:47 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:34:47 -0300
Subject: [governance] Open consultations
Message-ID: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

We have lousy connectivity here in ILO premises, so reporting, twittering,
etc becomes a problem. Remote participation through the platform is working
well though so you can follow the webcast and participate sending your
comments.
Just a brief e-mail to let you know that ICC approched me and they agree
that our workshop proposal on IGF improvement should stand alone. They will
merge with the technical community. Ayesha reinforced that
cross-participation of stakeholders between the two workshops should be
encouraged.
After some discussion with CS folks here in geneva yesterday I proposed that
MAG meeting be in fact an open meeting. There was no resistance. I also
asked the secretariat to update the list of formal MAG members, because ppl
have left the MAG, and we need to know who's in and who's out. I also asked
for clarification on status of choosing a chair and an executive. They said
that the UN needs to open the position and they have not done so yet. There
was criticism about that from the floor, specially from the UK government.
Best,
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/20110518/82b43b0a/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  Wed May 18 08:19:26 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 14:19:26 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Open consultations
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com> (message
	from Marilia Maciel on Wed, 18 May 2011 08:34:47 -0300)
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Remote participation through the platform is working well though so
> you can follow the webcast and participate sending your comments.

Just to clarify, it's working for some, but not for everyone: It
isn't working for me.

There are standardized protocols for internet communication. Why
doesn't whoever is organizing these "Open Consultations" walk the
talk of internet governance and use one of them?

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

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

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


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed May 18 08:24:17 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 09:24:17 -0300
Subject: [governance] Open consultations
In-Reply-To: <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Q8NUrXtp0BKX6efy6HvWQg3vU2Q@mail.gmail.com>

Norbert,

Technical folks here said that when the platform does not work, it is
probably because you dont have flash or it is outdated.
Sorry not to be able to help more. All remote participation is being
provided by WSIS.
As for the e-mail, someone should be chacking it, this is basic! You should
write the secretariat about that.
marilia

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Remote participation through the platform is working well though so
> > you can follow the webcast and participate sending your comments.
>
> Just to clarify, it's working for some, but not for everyone: It
> isn't working for me.
>
> There are standardized protocols for internet communication. Why
> doesn't whoever is organizing these "Open Consultations" walk the
> talk of internet governance and use one of them?
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
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/20110518/f70b5276/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 May 18 09:09:01 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 14:09:01 +0100
Subject: [governance] Open consultations
In-Reply-To: <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <20110518121926.476A215C0DF at quill.bollow.ch>, at 14:19:26 on 
Wed, 18 May 2011, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
>> Remote participation through the platform is working well though so
>> you can follow the webcast and participate sending your comments.
>
>Just to clarify, it's working for some, but not for everyone: It
>isn't working for me.
>
>There are standardized protocols for internet communication. Why
>doesn't whoever is organizing these "Open Consultations" walk the
>talk of internet governance and use one of them?

Adobe Connect is a pretty standard application to use for this kind of 
thing.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 18 09:19:14 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 14:19:14 +0100
Subject: [governance] Open consultations
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EVro3fCSd80NFA+1@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g at mail.gmail.com>, at 
08:34:47 on Wed, 18 May 2011, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> 
writes
>I also asked the secretariat to update the list of formal MAG members, 
>because ppl have left the MAG, and we need to know who's in and who's 
>out. I also asked for clarification on status of choosing a chair and 
>an executive. They said that the UN needs to open the position and they 
>have not done so yet. There was criticism about that from the floor, 
>specially from the UK government

I was interested in the response that the IGF Chair is the same person 
as the Secretary General's Special Advisor for IG. Therefore it's a 
bigger role which needs to be recruited for here. But without a chair to 
"advise" is a "MAG meeting" a misnomer?

Do you think the UN will be able to appoint a new Executive 
Co-ordinator, before the CSTD reports on possible reform, including new 
ways to organise/fund the IGF? In theory the CSTD could recommend that 
the role is changed (for example, how quickly we seem to have forgotten 
the potential relocation of the secretariat to New York), although we 
know it's unlikely to be making concrete recommendations in the near 
future.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From nb at bollow.ch  Wed May 18 10:00:44 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 16:00:44 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] remote paticipation via standardized protocols (was
 Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com> (message from Roland
	Perry on Wed, 18 May 2011 14:09:01 +0100)
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Technical folks here said that when the platform does not work, it is
> probably because you dont have flash or it is outdated.

While for security reasons I don't have flash on my main PC, I tried
this on a different machine which has flash installed, with the
version requirement satisfied.

> As for the e-mail, someone should be chacking it, this is basic!

Yes, absolutely. And e-mail is standardized (RFC 2821, RFC 2822).
I thought that this was a reasonable fall-back until it turned out
that they're apparantly not monitoring the email address that was
specifically announced for facilitation of remote participation at
this particular event.


Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message <20110518121926.476A215C0DF at quill.bollow.ch>, at 14:19:26 on 
> Wed, 18 May 2011, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
> >> Remote participation through the platform is working well though so
> >> you can follow the webcast and participate sending your comments.
> >
> >Just to clarify, it's working for some, but not for everyone: It
> >isn't working for me.
> >
> >There are standardized protocols for internet communication. Why
> >doesn't whoever is organizing these "Open Consultations" walk the
> >talk of internet governance and use one of them?
> 
> Adobe Connect is a pretty standard application to use for this kind of 
> thing.

If even for an internet governance event, even standardization
organizations like ITU use instead of standardized communication
protocols a proprietary software platform that just happens to
exclude some users for reasons which possibly cannot be reasonably
debugged for lack of an openly published protocol specification,
something is seriously wrong in the land of internet governance.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean with the word "standard" in
"pretty standard application". If you mean "widely used and generally
accepted", I'll take your statement as an indication that this
particular example of what I'd call the "problem of insufficient
application-layer standardization in internet-based communication" is
an important and significant one.

There's an internet governance problem here. Please let's address it.

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

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Wed May 18 10:18:56 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 15:18:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] remote paticipation via standardized protocols
 (was Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF at quill.bollow.ch>, at 16:00:44 on 
Wed, 18 May 2011, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes

>I'm not sure what exactly you mean with the word "standard" in
>"pretty standard application".

I mean that lots of meetings use it, and that it's a well established 
and widely deployed product.

>If you mean "widely used and generally accepted", I'll take your 
>statement as an indication that this particular example of what I'd 
>call the "problem of insufficient application-layer standardization in 
>internet-based communication" is an important and significant one.
>
>There's an internet governance problem here. Please let's address it.

If you want to exercise some central and dogmatic control of which 
applications people are allowed to use on the Internet, I would have 
expected a caucus such as IGC would be the last place you'd find people 
agreeing.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From nb at bollow.ch  Wed May 18 10:57:55 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 16:57:55 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] remote paticipation via standardized protocols
 (was Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com> (message from Roland
	Perry on Wed, 18 May 2011 15:18:56 +0100)
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <20110518145755.A98BA15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> If you want to exercise some central and dogmatic control of which 
> applications people are allowed to use on the Internet, I would have 
> expected a caucus such as IGC would be the last place you'd find people 
> agreeing.

What I'm asking for is standardization of protocols and data formats
used in communcation, specifically with the goal of internet users
having greater freedom of choice with regard to what software they
can use while still being able to communicate.

Or are you claiming that it is not a problem if network effects of
communciation threaten to force everyone to use operating system
software from one of two vendors, both of them providing their
software only in EULA-restricted binary-only non-modifiable form,
both based in the same country -- even if apart from these network
effects alternatives would exist? That would be a pretty extreme
view of software-neocolonialism.

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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Wed May 18 11:10:09 2011
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 17:10:09 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: remote paticipation via standardized protocols
  (was Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <20110518151009.GA32598@nic.fr>

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 03:18:56PM +0100,
 Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote 
 a message of 34 lines which said:

> If you want to exercise some central and dogmatic control of which
> applications people are allowed to use on the Internet, I would have
> expected a caucus such as IGC would be the last place you'd find
> people agreeing.

Incredibly poor and insulting reply. I think it is obvious that no one
asked for that, but for the ability for people to use a standard
protocol, instead of having to use a proprietary
application. Internally, ITU can use what it wants but, for a public
event, we should not have to explain to a standard development
organization the point of standards!
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 18 12:06:53 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 17:06:53 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: remote paticipation via standardized protocols
  (was Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <20110518151009.GA32598@nic.fr>
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110518151009.GA32598@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <dj4OKnRd6+0NFA+H@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <20110518151009.GA32598 at nic.fr>, at 17:10:09 on Wed, 18 May 
2011, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at internatif.org> writes

>> If you want to exercise some central and dogmatic control of which
>> applications people are allowed to use on the Internet, I would have
>> expected a caucus such as IGC would be the last place you'd find
>> people agreeing.
>
>Incredibly poor and insulting reply. I think it is obvious that no one
>asked for that, but for the ability for people to use a standard
>protocol, instead of having to use a proprietary
>application. Internally, ITU can use what it wants but, for a public
>event, we should not have to explain to a standard development
>organization the point of standards!

I'm genuinely puzzled - you imply I have misunderstood, and then 
apparently go on to say ITU should be told not to use Adobe Connect 
(enforced by whom?)

Is there even an ITU (or similar) standard for video-conferencing, and 
does anyone have a suitable client? It's a tricky application to get 
right and Adobe Connect is the most user-friendly of the handful I've 
seen deployed for meetings such as this.

I gave up shouting (because I do care) at people who sent me [inherently 
proprietary] Word documents, or Excel Spreadsheets (both of which are 
used extensively in UN and ITU), rather than some mythical "open 
standard" version, years ago. There are more useful tides to try to turn 
than this.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Wed May 18 12:16:37 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 17:16:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] remote paticipation via standardized protocols
 (was Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <20110518145755.A98BA15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518145755.A98BA15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <SiGdq8SlD$0NFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <20110518145755.A98BA15C0DF at quill.bollow.ch>, at 16:57:55 on 
Wed, 18 May 2011, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
>Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>> If you want to exercise some central and dogmatic control of which
>> applications people are allowed to use on the Internet, I would have
>> expected a caucus such as IGC would be the last place you'd find people
>> agreeing.
>
>What I'm asking for is standardization of protocols and data formats
>used in communcation, specifically with the goal of internet users
>having greater freedom of choice with regard to what software they
>can use while still being able to communicate.

The problem with something like Remote Participation is the way it 
combines several "multimedia" modes, for example:

Live video and audio
Streaming text for transcription
Chatroom
Copy of projected images

with an integrated log-in and/or subscription system.

It's only one thing for everyone to install and get working, rather than 
several.

>Or are you claiming that it is not a problem if network effects of
>communciation threaten to force everyone to use operating system
>software from one of two vendors, both of them providing their
>software only in EULA-restricted binary-only non-modifiable form,
>both based in the same country -- even if apart from these network
>effects alternatives would exist? That would be a pretty extreme
>view of software-neocolonialism.

We have to be practical, and covering Windows, Apple and Linux (that's 
three, not two, even assuming you can count Linux as only "one") with a 
zero-cost application will satisfy almost everyone.

If things change, other solutions might be preferable, but this one 
works, now, and we should embrace it. The energy should go into talking 
about the IGF's core purpose, not criticising their choice of remote 
participation tools (when they changed each year because of a new host 
country, it was much worse).
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From nb at bollow.ch  Thu May 19 03:59:34 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 09:59:34 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] remote paticipation via standardized protocols
 (was Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <SiGdq8SlD$0NFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com> (message from Roland
	Perry on Wed, 18 May 2011 17:16:37 +0100)
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518145755.A98BA15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <SiGdq8SlD$0NFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <20110519075934.696A515C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> If things change, other solutions might be preferable, but this one 
> works, now, and we should embrace it.

Wishful thinking and denying that a problem exists does not
help someone for whom this "solution" does not work (like it
is the case for me, with a rather ordinary Ubuntu setup with
Adobe flash installed from the "Canonical partner repository",
so according to Roland's assertions the "solution" should
work, but in my actual experience that is not the case.)

Wishful thinking and denying that a problem exists also does
not help to address the fundamental internet governance problem
that --because of the insufficient emphasis on strictly open
standards in key communication related areas-- there is strong
socioeconomic pressure to avoid using e.g. GNU/Linux.

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

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

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


From avri at acm.org  Thu May 19 04:29:04 2011
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 04:29:04 -0400
Subject: [governance] remote paticipation via standardized protocols
 (was Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <20110519075934.696A515C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com> <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110518145755.A98BA15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <SiGdq8SlD$0NFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110519075934.696A515C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <AF2579D4-F9F9-44BD-A11A-C491B4FD3D2E@acm.org>


On 19 May 2011, at 03:59, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>> If things change, other solutions might be preferable, but this one 
>> works, now, and we should embrace it.

embrace seems a bit strong.
if it works for all we should certainly use
on the other hand if it doesn't work for everyone that is a concern.

> 
> Wishful thinking and denying that a problem exists does not
> help someone for whom this "solution" does not work (like it
> is the case for me, with a rather ordinary Ubuntu setup with
> Adobe flash installed from the "Canonical partner repository",
> so according to Roland's assertions the "solution" should
> work, but in my actual experience that is not the case.)
> 
> Wishful thinking and denying that a problem exists also does
> not help to address the fundamental internet governance problem
> that --because of the insufficient emphasis on strictly open
> standards in key communication related areas-- there is strong
> socioeconomic pressure to avoid using e.g. GNU/Linux.
> 

and also that it limits global remote participation.

of course even the way it was set up at the ITU, while for the most part one could listen - until the broke up in groups that is - there was no way to actually participate as the did not enable and test those capabilities of Adobe.


a.

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

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Thu May 19 09:07:22 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 14:07:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] remote paticipation via standardized protocols
 (was Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <AF2579D4-F9F9-44BD-A11A-C491B4FD3D2E@acm.org>
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518145755.A98BA15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <SiGdq8SlD$0NFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519075934.696A515C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <AF2579D4-F9F9-44BD-A11A-C491B4FD3D2E@acm.org>
Message-ID: <I$sLN6eKYR1NFAFI@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <AF2579D4-F9F9-44BD-A11A-C491B4FD3D2E at acm.org>, at 04:29:04 
on Thu, 19 May 2011, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> writes
>
>On 19 May 2011, at 03:59, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>> If things change, other solutions might be preferable, but this one
>>> works, now, and we should embrace it.
>
>embrace seems a bit strong.
>if it works for all we should certainly use
>on the other hand if it doesn't work for everyone that is a concern.

Most of the "not working" I've seen seems to be due to things like the 
hosts not plugging in the microphone. That's a problem which software 
can't really solve (other than by allowing everyone to contact the 
operator, which we've been doing).

>> Wishful thinking and denying that a problem exists does not
>> help someone for whom this "solution" does not work (like it
>> is the case for me, with a rather ordinary Ubuntu setup with
>> Adobe flash installed from the "Canonical partner repository",
>> so according to Roland's assertions the "solution" should
>> work, but in my actual experience that is not the case.)
>>
>> Wishful thinking and denying that a problem exists also does
>> not help to address the fundamental internet governance problem
>> that --because of the insufficient emphasis on strictly open
>> standards in key communication related areas-- there is strong
>> socioeconomic pressure to avoid using e.g. GNU/Linux.
>
>and also that it limits global remote participation.

Any solution will be limiting in one way or another. I'd be limited if 
all I could see was the transcript or an audio feed, and my only way of 
sending in questions was by email.

>of course even the way it was set up at the ITU, while for the most 
>part one could listen - until the broke up in groups that is

That'll always happen when you get ad-hoc breakout groups and the 
organisers don't have every possible meeting room/location wired up.

>- there was no way to actually participate as the did not enable and 
>test those capabilities of Adobe.

I don't think that's a problem with Adobe - features of other systems 
(of which I don't hear many specific suggestions) could also suffer from 
not being used to the full.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 19 09:16:13 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 14:16:13 +0100
Subject: [governance] remote paticipation via standardized protocols
 (was Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <20110519075934.696A515C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518145755.A98BA15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <SiGdq8SlD$0NFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519075934.696A515C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <eAJ+SDgdgR1NFAFT@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <20110519075934.696A515C0DF at quill.bollow.ch>, at 09:59:34 on 
Thu, 19 May 2011, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
>> If things change, other solutions might be preferable, but this one
>> works, now, and we should embrace it.
>
>Wishful thinking and denying that a problem exists does not
>help someone for whom this "solution" does not work (like it
>is the case for me, with a rather ordinary Ubuntu setup with
>Adobe flash installed from the "Canonical partner repository",
>so according to Roland's assertions the "solution" should
>work, but in my actual experience that is not the case.)

What I said was that there were more than two platforms available.

>Wishful thinking and denying that a problem exists also does
>not help to address the fundamental internet governance problem
>that --because of the insufficient emphasis on strictly open
>standards in key communication related areas-- there is strong
>socioeconomic pressure to avoid using e.g. GNU/Linux.

I'm sorry, but I don't think Operating System Wars is anything to do 
with Internet Governance.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From avri at acm.org  Thu May 19 10:52:07 2011
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 10:52:07 -0400
Subject: [governance] remote paticipation via standardized protocols
 (was Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <I$sLN6eKYR1NFAFI@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com> <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110518145755.A98BA15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <SiGdq8SlD$0NFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110519075934.696A515C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <AF2579D4-F9F9-44BD-A11A-C491B4FD3D2E@acm.org> <I$sLN6eKYR1NFAFI@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <C31D3188-6DC6-4B39-9494-DBE2F0E3EA7A@acm.org>


On 19 May 2011, at 09:07, Roland Perry wrote:

>> of course even the way it was set up at the ITU, while for the most part one could listen - until the broke up in groups that is
> 
> That'll always happen when you get ad-hoc breakout groups and the organisers don't have every possible meeting room/location wired up.


in a well formed plan from remote participation, everyone's laptop etc.  could have to capability to feed into  the remote particpation matrix.

or something like that.  and getting something that  allows for an ad-hoc setup of server would be easier in the FOSS world.  anything that requires a license to be a server limits the spread of the remote participation capability.

and, since CS rarely has the ability to pay the fees for the good private stuff, if we want to carry around the ability to establish remote participation for any meeting anywhere anytime, we need something other than Adobe etc...

no put down on Adobe, just the way of the world.

a.



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

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

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


From nb at bollow.ch  Thu May 19 11:02:45 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 17:02:45 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] remote paticipation via standardized protocols
 (was Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <eAJ+SDgdgR1NFAFT@internetpolicyagency.com> (message from Roland
	Perry on Thu, 19 May 2011 14:16:13 +0100)
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518145755.A98BA15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <SiGdq8SlD$0NFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519075934.696A515C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <eAJ+SDgdgR1NFAFT@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <20110519150245.E271B15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message <20110519075934.696A515C0DF at quill.bollow.ch>, at 09:59:34 on 
> Thu, 19 May 2011, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
> >> If things change, other solutions might be preferable, but this one
> >> works, now, and we should embrace it.
> >
> >Wishful thinking and denying that a problem exists does not
> >help someone for whom this "solution" does not work (like it
> >is the case for me, with a rather ordinary Ubuntu setup with
> >Adobe flash installed from the "Canonical partner repository",
> >so according to Roland's assertions the "solution" should
> >work, but in my actual experience that is not the case.)
> 
> What I said was that there were more than two platforms available.

Your exact words were:

:: We have to be practical, and covering Windows, Apple and Linux (that's 
:: three, not two, even assuming you can count Linux as only "one") with a 
:: zero-cost application will satisfy almost everyone.
::
:: If things change, other solutions might be preferable, but this one 
:: works, now, and we should embrace it.

In my understanding, that was an assertion that it "works" under
"Windows", "Apple" and "Linux", which is at odds with my experience
with a very typical set-up of the latter.

Maybe I should also mention that assertions that the "solution" "works
now" and "we should embrace it" are rather unfriendly things to say to
someone who was just locked out from being able to participate because
what "works now" doesn't for everyone and even the fall-back option of
live transcripts + email isn't made avalable, presumably as a result
of a mistaken belief that the Abobe "solution" works for everyone?

(Yesterday the "live transcript" was working but a timely intervention
that I submitted by email got ignored, probably because nobody was
watching the email address that had been provided, and today the "live
transcript" links just give the message "Event is not active".)

> >Wishful thinking and denying that a problem exists also does
> >not help to address the fundamental internet governance problem
> >that --because of the insufficient emphasis on strictly open
> >standards in key communication related areas-- there is strong
> >socioeconomic pressure to avoid using e.g. GNU/Linux.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think Operating System Wars is anything to do 
> with Internet Governance.

Governance is always primarily about ensuring some kind of fairness.

In the case of Internet Governance, if that isn't about fairness in
internet communication, what else is the goal of Internet Governance
supposed to be? Protection of "Western" economic dominance at the
expense of others, while giving just enough aid and concessions to
"developing" nations that they don't rebel???

I find your choice of words interesting in referring to "wars". The
metaphor of a "war" implies the presence of some kind of violence.
Isn't the kind of violence which is present here precisely the
refusal of fairness with regard to openness of interfaces?

Consider the example of bread. In itself, bread does not have anything
to do with any kind of ethnic conflict. But if in any place, bakers
and shopkeepers refuse to sell bread to members of a specific ethnic
group, then these bakers and shopkeepers become a party in an ethnic
conflict. If the people who have a governance role refuse to consider
it part of their responsibility to act in response to complaints, are
they truly fulfilling their responsibility?

I think that the situation is very similar when reasonable requests
for openness of interfaces are refused.

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

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Thu May 19 11:16:26 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 16:16:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] remote paticipation via standardized protocols
 (was Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <C31D3188-6DC6-4B39-9494-DBE2F0E3EA7A@acm.org>
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518145755.A98BA15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <SiGdq8SlD$0NFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519075934.696A515C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <AF2579D4-F9F9-44BD-A11A-C491B4FD3D2E@acm.org>
 <I$sLN6eKYR1NFAFI@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <C31D3188-6DC6-4B39-9494-DBE2F0E3EA7A@acm.org>
Message-ID: <sxsiOOsKRT1NFABw@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <C31D3188-6DC6-4B39-9494-DBE2F0E3EA7A at acm.org>, at 10:52:07 
on Thu, 19 May 2011, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> writes
>>> of course even the way it was set up at the ITU, while for the most part one could listen - until the broke up in groups that is
>>
>> That'll always happen when you get ad-hoc breakout groups and the organisers don't have every possible meeting room/location wired up.
>
>in a well formed plan from remote participation, everyone's laptop etc.  could have to capability to feed into  the remote particpation matrix.
>
>or something like that.  and getting something that  allows for an ad-hoc setup of server would be easier in the FOSS world.  anything that
>requires a license to be a server limits the spread of the remote participation capability.
>
>and, since CS rarely has the ability to pay the fees for the good private stuff, if we want to carry around the ability to establish remote
>participation for any meeting anywhere anytime, we need something other than Adobe etc...
>
>no put down on Adobe, just the way of the world.

The way to cure this is to set up a project to produce the "better" 
remote participation tools, then trial them at some large meetings where 
you are in control (perhaps some of those meetings unable to pay licence 
fees). Once the merits are established, it should be an easy "sell" to 
venues like ICANN and the UN.

In the mean time, we are where we are, and have to use the tools that 
are available, and to some extent proven in the marketplace.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 19 11:37:24 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 16:37:24 +0100
Subject: [governance] remote paticipation via standardized protocols
 (was Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <20110519150245.E271B15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518145755.A98BA15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <SiGdq8SlD$0NFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519075934.696A515C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <eAJ+SDgdgR1NFAFT@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519150245.E271B15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <7RTn2Fu0kT1NFAgM@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <20110519150245.E271B15C0DF at quill.bollow.ch>, at 17:02:45 on 
Thu, 19 May 2011, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
>Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>> In message <20110519075934.696A515C0DF at quill.bollow.ch>, at 09:59:34 on
>> Thu, 19 May 2011, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
>> >> If things change, other solutions might be preferable, but this one
>> >> works, now, and we should embrace it.
>> >
>> >Wishful thinking and denying that a problem exists does not
>> >help someone for whom this "solution" does not work (like it
>> >is the case for me, with a rather ordinary Ubuntu setup with
>> >Adobe flash installed from the "Canonical partner repository",
>> >so according to Roland's assertions the "solution" should
>> >work, but in my actual experience that is not the case.)
>>
>> What I said was that there were more than two platforms available.
>
>Your exact words were:
>
>:: We have to be practical, and covering Windows, Apple and Linux (that's
>:: three, not two, even assuming you can count Linux as only "one") with a
>:: zero-cost application will satisfy almost everyone.
>::
>:: If things change, other solutions might be preferable, but this one
>:: works, now, and we should embrace it.
>
>In my understanding, that was an assertion that it "works" under
>"Windows", "Apple" and "Linux",

Versions are available for all three.

>which is at odds with my experience with a very typical set-up of the 
>latter.

One of the problems with *nix is that its advantages are traded off 
against what seems to me to be a much restricted degree of "plug and 
play". Not surprising given the almost infinite combinations available.

>Maybe I should also mention that assertions that the "solution" "works
>now" and "we should embrace it" are rather unfriendly things to say to
>someone who was just locked out from being able to participate because
>what "works now" doesn't for everyone and even the fall-back option of
>live transcripts + email isn't made avalable, presumably as a result
>of a mistaken belief that the Abobe "solution" works for everyone?

Email was available (although I didn't see any evidence that it was used 
by anyone) and the streaming text was done on a separate website (not 
via Adobe). The lack of integration of the streaming text made it harder 
for those of us who were using Adobe, but potentially easier for those 
who weren't.

>(Yesterday the "live transcript" was working but a timely intervention
>that I submitted by email got ignored, probably because nobody was
>watching the email address that had been provided, and today the "live
>transcript" links just give the message "Event is not active".)

There's a new link for each session, and I did notice that this 
afternoon's link was erroneously pointing at the morning session.

eg: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=MAGam&chat=no
vs: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=MAGpm&chat=no
                                                  **
That's a webmastering/editing issue, not a technology one!

But having got past that minor finger trouble, it was fine.

>> >Wishful thinking and denying that a problem exists also does
>> >not help to address the fundamental internet governance problem
>> >that --because of the insufficient emphasis on strictly open
>> >standards in key communication related areas-- there is strong
>> >socioeconomic pressure to avoid using e.g. GNU/Linux.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I don't think Operating System Wars is anything to do
>> with Internet Governance.
>
>Governance is always primarily about ensuring some kind of fairness.
>
>In the case of Internet Governance, if that isn't about fairness in
>internet communication, what else is the goal of Internet Governance
>supposed to be? Protection of "Western" economic dominance at the
>expense of others, while giving just enough aid and concessions to
>"developing" nations that they don't rebel???

You can't pull everything in the world into "Internet" Governance. 
Remember how there was a survey last year which showed that people's 
most critical resource was their laptop battery. On that basis, battery 
technology, and also the shape of electrical outlets to plug my laptop 
into, are also "Internet Governance".

>I find your choice of words interesting in referring to "wars".

It's a commonplace description of Microsoft vs Apple, Intel vs AMD, or 
any other set of rival technologies.

>The metaphor of a "war" implies the presence of some kind of violence.

Not physical violence. Can be played out other ways eg "war of words".

>Isn't the kind of violence which is present here precisely the
>refusal of fairness with regard to openness of interfaces?

The fairest thing to do is deploy a solution that's instantly available 
to the largest number of users. It would be even more unfair to deny 
that to them. Fairness is not ensuring that everyone is equally poorly 
serviced.

>Consider the example of bread. In itself, bread does not have anything
>to do with any kind of ethnic conflict. But if in any place, bakers
>and shopkeepers refuse to sell bread to members of a specific ethnic
>group, then these bakers and shopkeepers become a party in an ethnic
>conflict.

What if Windows and Apple supported a wider language/character/script 
set than a random installation of Linux. Would that mean the Linux was 
the most discriminatory, and least preferred?
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Thu May 19 11:56:30 2011
From: bommelaer at isoc.org (Constance Bommelaer)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 17:56:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] Internet Society IGF 2011 Ambassadors Programme - Call
 for Applications
Message-ID: <20110519155709.34A7B4B477@npogroups.org>

Dear all, 

 

Following discussions this afternoon at the MAG meeting, please find below
information regarding the Internet Society's 2011 IGF Ambassadors program. 

 

Best regards,

 

Constance Bommelaer

Senior Manager

Strategic Global Engagement

Internet Society

www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org/> 

 

=============

 

 

IGF 2011 Ambassadors Programme - Call for Applications

 

The Internet Society is pleased to announce a call for applications to
participate in the Internet Society (ISOC) Ambassador programme to the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting in Nairobi, Kenya in September 2011.

 

As part of the Internet Society's Next Generation Leaders programme
<http://www.isoc.org/leaders>  (www.isoc.org/leaders), the IGF Ambassador
programme is designed to involve members in ISOC's global engagement
activities while providing valuable expertise and know-how to the IGF
meeting in Nairobi.  The Internet Society supports participation of first
time Ambassadors as well as returning Ambassadors from Internet Governance
Forums in Rio (2007), Hyderabad (2008), Sharm El Sheik (2009), and Vilnius
(2010).

 

"Since the Internet Society started the IGF Ambassadors programme in Rio in
2007," notes Toral Cowieson, Internet Society Senior Director of Internet
Leadership Programmes, "the issues have become more complex and the stakes
higher.  ISOC is committed to fostering rising and future decision-makers at
the intersection of policy, technology, and business and our renewal of this
programme recognizes that these multi-disciplinary leaders are at the core
of the discussion of an open and robust Internet."

 

The IGF 2011 meeting will take place Tuesday 27 through Friday 30 September
2011. Interested individuals should be available to arrive no later than
Saturday 24 September.

 

The deadline for applications is Friday, 27 May 2011.

 

The Next Generation Leaders programme, under the patronage of the European
Commission for Information Society and Media, blends course work and
practical experience to help prepare young professionals (aged from 20 to
40) from around the world to become the next generation of Internet
technology, policy, and business leaders.


Further details on the Internet Society's IGF 2011 Ambassador program are
available here: http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/igfambassadors/.  

 

For more information, see:

            . Next Generation Leaders programme
<http://www.isoc.org/leaders>  (www.isoc.org/leaders)

            . Internet Governance Forum <http://www.intgovforum.org/>
(www.intgovforum.org)

 

The Internet Society's Next Generation Leaders programme is sponsored by
Nominet Trust <http://www.nominettrust.org.uk/>  and AFNIC
<http://www.afnic.fr/> .

 

For more information on how to apply for the IGF Ambassador programme,
please visit http://www.isoc.org/leaders or email leaders at isoc.org. To
become a Next Generation Leader programme Corporate or Organizational
partner, please email leader-sponsor at isoc.org
<http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/leader-sponsor at isoc.org> .

 

Connie J Kendig

Sponsored Programs & Grants Manager

Internet Society

www.InternetSociety.org <http://www.InternetSociety.org/> 

 

 

What will the Internet look like in 10 years? 
Watch the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OInTXcZ4HZM

For more information: www.internetsociety.org/scenarios

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110519/49dac0c9/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  Thu May 19 12:17:25 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 18:17:25 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] remote paticipation via standardized protocols
 (was Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <7RTn2Fu0kT1NFAgM@internetpolicyagency.com> (message from Roland
	Perry on Thu, 19 May 2011 16:37:24 +0100)
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518145755.A98BA15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <SiGdq8SlD$0NFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519075934.696A515C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <eAJ+SDgdgR1NFAFT@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519150245.E271B15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <7RTn2Fu0kT1NFAgM@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <20110519161725.4342615C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> >In my understanding, that was an assertion that it "works" under
> >"Windows", "Apple" and "Linux",
> 
> Versions are available for all three.

Well the "Linux" version didn't work for me.

> >which is at odds with my experience with a very typical set-up of the 
> >latter.
> 
> One of the problems with *nix is that its advantages are traded off 
> against what seems to me to be a much restricted degree of "plug and 
> play". Not surprising given the almost infinite combinations available.

The path to solve this kind of problems is standardization.

Why do you oppose that?

> >Maybe I should also mention that assertions that the "solution" "works
> >now" and "we should embrace it" are rather unfriendly things to say to
> >someone who was just locked out from being able to participate because
> >what "works now" doesn't for everyone and even the fall-back option of
> >live transcripts + email isn't made avalable, presumably as a result
> >of a mistaken belief that the Abobe "solution" works for everyone?
> 
> Email was available

I find your repeated assertions to the contrary of my experience very
frustrating.

> (although I didn't see any evidence that it was used 
> by anyone)

As I wrote, my timely and appropriate attempt to communicate by email
was ignored.

> >(Yesterday the "live transcript" was working but a timely intervention
> >that I submitted by email got ignored, probably because nobody was
> >watching the email address that had been provided, and today the "live
> >transcript" links just give the message "Event is not active".)
> 
> There's a new link for each session, and I did notice that this 
> afternoon's link was erroneously pointing at the morning session.
> 
> eg: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=MAGam&chat=no
> vs: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=MAGpm&chat=no

During the morning session, the morning session link also didn't
work.

> That's a webmastering/editing issue

and a "lack of testing / double-checking" issue.

> not a technology one!

Agreed. But why didn't anyone (with the power to get issues fixed)
check that the links work?

Wouldn't chances be that it'd be checked have been better if there had
been awareness that the Adobe "solution" doesn't work for everyone?

>> Isn't the kind of violence which is present here precisely the
>> refusal of fairness with regard to openness of interfaces?
>
> The fairest thing to do is deploy a solution that's instantly available 
> to the largest number of users. It would be even more unfair to deny 
> that to them. Fairness is not ensuring that everyone is equally poorly 
> serviced.

I'm not asking for downgrading of service for anyone.

But I'm asking you to stop pretending that the problems which I'm
pointing out don't exits or are irrelevant to internet governance.

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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu May 19 16:37:42 2011
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 06:37:42 +1000
Subject: [governance] Petition on G8
Message-ID: <C9FBBCB6.18ED9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

People may be interested to add their names to this petition

https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/g8-protect-the-net



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

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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu May 19 16:48:57 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 22:48:57 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Petition on G8
References: <C9FBBCB6.18ED9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFF8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Ian
 
where I can find the list with the signatories?
 
w

 
________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Ian Peter
Gesendet: Do 19.05.2011 22:37
An: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
Betreff: [governance] Petition on G8



People may be interested to add their names to this petition

https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/g8-protect-the-net



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

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

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



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

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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu May 19 17:04:27 2011
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 07:04:27 +1000
Subject: AW: [governance] Petition on G8
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFF8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <C9FBC2FB.18EEB%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Dunno..... 


> From: Wolfgang Kleinw‰chter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Wolfgang Kleinw‰chter
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 22:48:57 +0200
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Subject: AW: [governance] Petition on G8
> 
> Ian
>  
> where I can find the list with the signatories?
>  
> w
> 
>  
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Ian Peter
> Gesendet: Do 19.05.2011 22:37
> An: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> Betreff: [governance] Petition on G8
> 
> 
> 
> People may be interested to add their names to this petition
> 
> https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/g8-protect-the-net
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Thu May 19 18:47:33 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 18:47:33 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Petition on G8
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFF8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <C9FBBCB6.18ED9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BFF8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <03E4BF65-29BF-4B33-8695-973B8623019A@ella.com>

can find the list of signatories, but the group sponsoring it seems interesting.

https://www.accessnow.org/about


On 19 May 2011, at 16:48, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> Ian
> 
> where I can find the list with the signatories?
> 
> w
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Ian Peter
> Gesendet: Do 19.05.2011 22:37
> An: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> Betreff: [governance] Petition on G8
> 
> 
> 
> People may be interested to add their names to this petition
> 
> https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/g8-protect-the-net
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu May 19 23:58:25 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 05:58:25 +0200
Subject: [governance] Petition on G8
In-Reply-To: <C9FBBCB6.18ED9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C9FBBCB6.18ED9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <894D54BE-12C2-48CB-9481-F311C74CA1F5@ciroap.org>

On 19/05/2011, at 10:37 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

> People may be interested to add their names to this petition
> 
> https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/g8-protect-the-net

Their letter is a fork of ours (and references us).

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

Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. 
www.consumersinternational.org
Twitter @Consumers_Int

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

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

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri May 20 04:10:22 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 09:10:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] remote participation via standardized protocols (was
 Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <20110519161725.4342615C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518145755.A98BA15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <SiGdq8SlD$0NFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519075934.696A515C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <eAJ+SDgdgR1NFAFT@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519150245.E271B15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <7RTn2Fu0kT1NFAgM@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519161725.4342615C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <pI1zQANuHi1NFASp@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <20110519161725.4342615C0DF at quill.bollow.ch>, at 18:17:25 on 
Thu, 19 May 2011, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
>Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>
>> >In my understanding, that was an assertion that it "works" under
>> >"Windows", "Apple" and "Linux",
>>
>> Versions are available for all three.
>
>Well the "Linux" version didn't work for me.

Then there's something about your installation which is causing that. 
Unfortunately, as a Linux installation is almost certain to be 
less-standard than a Windows or Apple one, faultfinding can be quite 
tedious.

Have you tried something like Win4Lin, and then running the Windows 
version of Adobe on top of that?

>> >which is at odds with my experience with a very typical set-up of the
>> >latter.
>>
>> One of the problems with *nix is that its advantages are traded off
>> against what seems to me to be a much restricted degree of "plug and
>> play". Not surprising given the almost infinite combinations available.
>
>The path to solve this kind of problems is standardization.
>
>Why do you oppose that?

I don't. If everyone used the same "standard" version of Windows, and 
Apple and Linux were banned, everything would have a much better chance 
of installing immediately. That's the theory behind those application 
developers who say "I know for sure that this works in Internet 
Explorer, use it on other browsers at your peril".

On the other hand, I also realise that diversity is good, and the 
Internet is better suited than many other technologies at allowing 
people to carve their own applications and platforms. But if you go down 
that route, you have to accept that there will be teething problems.

I speak as someone who, having surveyed the early browser market and 
found issues with the only two candidates at the time (Netscape and 
Microsoft) commissioned some people to write a new browser - which we 
shipped for free with subscriptions to the ISP I was managing.

Another bunch of people came to the same decision over email clients, 
and I'm still using the one they wrote, 16 years later. Unfortunately, 
standards even for things like email keep changing, and the client is 
showing its age.

>> >Maybe I should also mention that assertions that the "solution" "works
>> >now" and "we should embrace it" are rather unfriendly things to say to
>> >someone who was just locked out from being able to participate because
>> >what "works now" doesn't for everyone and even the fall-back option of
>> >live transcripts + email isn't made avalable, presumably as a result
>> >of a mistaken belief that the Abobe "solution" works for everyone?
>>
>> Email was available
>
>I find your repeated assertions to the contrary of my experience very
>frustrating.

Your experience was that the email was ignored. I don't think there was 
a *technical* issue with it being delivered (unless you have not told us 
that it bounced back).

>> (although I didn't see any evidence that it was used
>> by anyone)
>
>As I wrote, my timely and appropriate attempt to communicate by email
>was ignored.

That's not the fault of the email protocol. There was an ICANN meeting 
quite a few years ago, when their remote participation was in its 
infancy, and the only way I could communicate with the room was by 
emailing one of the board members sitting on the platform!

During this week's meetings in Geneva, due to problems with the 
connectivity and the reluctance of the ITU's remote moderator to 
interrupt the meeting as often as the Adobe remote participants might 
have wished, the best way to participate was by Skype to people in the 
room. I know that the Caucus has used Skype in this way in the past - 
it's up to the co-ordinators in the room to set this up.

>> >(Yesterday the "live transcript" was working but a timely intervention
>> >that I submitted by email got ignored, probably because nobody was
>> >watching the email address that had been provided, and today the "live
>> >transcript" links just give the message "Event is not active".)
>>
>> There's a new link for each session, and I did notice that this
>> afternoon's link was erroneously pointing at the morning session.
>>
>> eg: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=MAGam&chat=no
>> vs: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=MAGpm&chat=no
>
>During the morning session, the morning session link also didn't
>work.

I didn't make a note of the link I used in the morning.

>> That's a webmastering/editing issue
>
>and a "lack of testing / double-checking" issue.

Yes, that's a problem that any organisation faces when setting up remote 
participation. It's very difficult to get everything right at the first 
attempt. The reason why ICANN and RIR remote participation works fairly 
smoothly is because they've had lots of practice, and why the RIR I used 
to work with, offered assistance for Vilnius.

But even then you still get sessions where one problem or another means 
remote participants don't get the feed properly (missing sound is one of 
the most common, as I hinted yesterday).

>> not a technology one!
>
>Agreed. But why didn't anyone (with the power to get issues fixed)
>check that the links work?

Experience, lack of time, any number of reasons why it's hard to make 
things run exactly to plan. They did a comprehensive sound check at the 
beginning of day 1, which was good. But things still went wrong later in 
the meeting.

>Wouldn't chances be that it'd be checked have been better if there had
>been awareness that the Adobe "solution" doesn't work for everyone?

Not at all, the presence of the chat window alongside the webcast made 
it very easy for participants to exchange notes between themselves and 
the ITU technician, regarding issues such as the sound quality.

>>> Isn't the kind of violence which is present here precisely the
>>> refusal of fairness with regard to openness of interfaces?
>>
>> The fairest thing to do is deploy a solution that's instantly available
>> to the largest number of users. It would be even more unfair to deny
>> that to them. Fairness is not ensuring that everyone is equally poorly
>> serviced.
>
>I'm not asking for downgrading of service for anyone.

Banning Adobe, for the reasons you given, would downgrade the service 
that I get. Unless you are aware of a substitute which is "better", and 
conforms to your requirements for "open-ness". I'm not aware of any such 
application (see also my replies to Avri).

>But I'm asking you to stop pretending that the problems which I'm
>pointing out don't exits

Of course there are problems, all remote participation solutions have 
problems. What we need to understand is whether the currently deployed 
technology is less likely to demonstrate problems overall, than other 
ways of doing it.

>or are irrelevant to internet governance.

They are relevant to the governance of meetings which happen to be about 
Internet Governance. But that's a different thing. Imagine the meetings 
were discussing planes and airports instead. Would Adobe connect then 
become an "air traffic control" issue?
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Fri May 20 05:25:47 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 11:25:47 +0200
Subject: [governance] News MAG  has been renewed
Message-ID: <4DD6339B.2040503@eff.org>

A short notice to let you know that MAG members have received a message 
from the Under-Secretary-General Mr. Sha Zukang of UNDESA extending an 
invitation to all present MAG members to continue their work until the 
conclusion of the 2011 IGF meeting in Nairobi.

All the best,

Katitza

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

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

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


From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Fri May 20 05:30:32 2011
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 02:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] News MAG  has been renewed
In-Reply-To: <4DD6339B.2040503@eff.org>
References: <4DD6339B.2040503@eff.org>
Message-ID: <765512.9998.qm@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Congratulation to all MAG Members.
They have continued with responsibilities.
Thanks
Imran Ahmed Shah

________________________________
From: Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org>
To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Sent: Fri, 20 May, 2011 14:25:47
Subject: [governance] News MAG  has been renewed

A short notice to let you know that MAG members have received a message from the 
Under-Secretary-General Mr. Sha Zukang of UNDESA extending an invitation to all 
present MAG members to continue their work until the conclusion of the 2011 IGF 
meeting in Nairobi.

All the best,

Katitza

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110520/b994cdb3/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 katitza at eff.org  Fri May 20 05:42:12 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 11:42:12 +0200
Subject: [governance] Workshop 10 - IGC proposal
Message-ID: <4DD63774.6070700@eff.org>

In order to close the loop on the latest discussions on the status of 
Workshop 10 (Indian proposal - IGF improvement), I am pleased to report 
that the IGC workshop 10 remains intact as requested by the IGC 
moderators/responsible of the session.

ICC also nicely said during the Open Consultation that they "WE WOULD BE 
PLEASED TO SUPPORT THE IGC'S WORKSHOP PROPOSAL GOING FORWARD AND WE'RE 
PLEASED TO SAY THAT ICC BASIS AND THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY WILL MERGE 
THEIR PROPOSALS SO WE'RE WORKING OUT DETAILS BUT WE HAVE HAD EXPRESSION 
FROM A FEW DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS, INCLUDING PORTUGAL AND EGYPT, TO 
PARTICIPATE IN THE WORKSHOP AND WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT 
IT'S GOING TO BE -- WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE CROSS PARTICIPATION BETWEEN 
THOSE TWO WORKSHOPS."


All the best,

-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Fri May 20 05:57:49 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 11:57:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] News MAG  has been renewed
In-Reply-To: <765512.9998.qm@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <4DD6339B.2040503@eff.org> <765512.9998.qm@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4DD63B1D.4080308@eff.org>

Please noted that civil society participants have requested the IGC 
Secretariat the current list of current MAG members, including the 
updated list of current civil society MAG members.

> Congratulation to all MAG Members.
> They have continued with responsibilities.
> Thanks
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org>
> *To:* "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> *Sent:* Fri, 20 May, 2011 14:25:47
> *Subject:* [governance] News MAG has been renewed
>
> A short notice to let you know that MAG members have received a 
> message from the Under-Secretary-General Mr. Sha Zukang of UNDESA 
> extending an invitation to all present MAG members to continue their 
> work until the conclusion of the 2011 IGF meeting in Nairobi.
>
> All the best,
>
> Katitza
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110520/677b2a7c/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 katitza at eff.org  Fri May 20 06:02:02 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 12:02:02 +0200
Subject: [governance] News MAG  has been renewed
In-Reply-To: <4DD63B1D.4080308@eff.org>
References: <4DD6339B.2040503@eff.org> <765512.9998.qm@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4DD63B1D.4080308@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DD63C1A.80809@eff.org>


Please noted that civil society participants have requested the IGC 
Secretariat the current list of current MAG members, including the 
updated list of current civil society MAG members since many might have 
resigned (and many of us might not be aware of it).


>
>> Congratulation to all MAG Members.
>> They have continued with responsibilities.
>> Thanks
>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org>
>> *To:* "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> *Sent:* Fri, 20 May, 2011 14:25:47
>> *Subject:* [governance] News MAG has been renewed
>>
>> A short notice to let you know that MAG members have received a 
>> message from the Under-Secretary-General Mr. Sha Zukang of UNDESA 
>> extending an invitation to all present MAG members to continue their 
>> work until the conclusion of the 2011 IGF meeting in Nairobi.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Katitza
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org  (personal email)
>
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110520/dad3e634/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 ceo at bnnrc.net  Fri May 20 06:06:00 2011
From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 16:06:00 +0600
Subject: [governance] News MAG  has been renewed
References: <4DD6339B.2040503@eff.org> <765512.9998.qm@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4DD63B1D.4080308@eff.org>
Message-ID: <17B3FDB9EFB14FF6BA8C617460A94124@BNNRCLAPTOP1>

Dear all MAG Members,
Very heartiest congratulations to all MAG Members.
Hope to see you in Nairobi again.
We wish to grand success of 6th IGF under all MAG Members.

With best regards,


Bazlu
_______________________
AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR
Chief Executive Officer
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council]
& 
Head, Community Radio Academy 
 
House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 
Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh
 
Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501
Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105
E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Katitza Rodriguez 
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Imran Ahmed Shah 
  Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 3:57 PM
  Subject: Re: [governance] News MAG has been renewed


  Please noted that civil society participants have requested the IGC Secretariat the current list of current MAG members, including the updated list of current civil society MAG members. 


    Congratulation to all MAG Members.
    They have continued with responsibilities.
    Thanks
    Imran Ahmed Shah

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org>
    To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
    Sent: Fri, 20 May, 2011 14:25:47
    Subject: [governance] News MAG has been renewed

    A short notice to let you know that MAG members have received a message from the Under-Secretary-General Mr. Sha Zukang of UNDESA extending an invitation to all present MAG members to continue their work until the conclusion of the 2011 IGF meeting in Nairobi.

    All the best,

    Katitza

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

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

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





-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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


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

  For all other list information and functions, see:
       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
  To 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/20110520/42d9b2ca/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 May 20 06:22:49 2011
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 05:22:49 -0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Online courses in ICT policy and Internet
 governance
Message-ID: <4DD640F9.30101@diplomacy.edu>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110520/fcf90da6/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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/20110520/fcf90da6/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 20 07:50:56 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 12:50:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] News MAG  has been renewed
In-Reply-To: <4DD63C1A.80809@eff.org>
References: <4DD6339B.2040503@eff.org>
 <765512.9998.qm@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4DD63B1D.4080308@eff.org>
 <4DD63C1A.80809@eff.org>
Message-ID: <Ukm8rwjgWl1NFAH6@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4DD63C1A.80809 at eff.org>, at 12:02:02 on Fri, 20 May 2011, 
Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> writes
>
>Please noted that civil society participants have requested the IGC 
>Secretariat the current list of current MAG members, including the 
>updated list of current civil society MAG members since many might have 
>resigned (and many of us might not be aware of it).

It is traditional that the report of a MAG meeting has a list of those 
MAG members present (and those using remote participation). Perhaps we 
can look forward to such a list for this week's 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 divina.meigs at orange.fr  Fri May 20 08:58:57 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 14:58:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] Petition on G8
In-Reply-To: <894D54BE-12C2-48CB-9481-F311C74CA1F5@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <C9FC3231.20F86%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Dear all
A quick follow-up on our open letter to president Sarkozy:
    -it was sent to and acknowledged by the person close to the president in
charge of organizing the event
    -it was sent to and acknowldedged by the person at the Foreign affairs
ministry that follows internet governance issues
    -it was sent to Agence France Presse
    -it has receveid support by Ligue des droits de l'homme
    -Le Monde didn't publish it in its "debate" columns though it did
consider it  and it is going to report on the e-G8
    -it will be debated in two news-programmes on France Culture: "Un jour
sur la toile" (next weekend) and "enjeux internationaux" (30 may)

Please note the proposed action of the French "Quadrature du net" at this
address:

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eg8-forum-a-smokescreen-for-governmental-cont
rol-of-the-net

There is this idea, rapidly discussed with Constance Bommelaer from ISOC, to
do a civil society/technical community event prior to G20 in Cannes ...

Please let us exchange, if you have other contacts or other news of
activities  

Best 
divina

Le 20/05/11 05:58, « Jeremy Malcolm » <jeremy at ciroap.org> a écrit :

> On 19/05/2011, at 10:37 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> 
>> People may be interested to add their names to this petition
>> 
>> https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/g8-protect-the-net
> 
> Their letter is a fork of ours (and references us).


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Fri May 20 09:10:57 2011
From: bommelaer at isoc.org (Constance Bommelaer)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 15:10:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] Petition on G8
In-Reply-To: <C9FC3231.20F86%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <20110520131135.B098D4B8E8@npogroups.org>

Thanks, Divina.

In future G8 and G20 forums, it would be nice to hold a side event or simply
participate to a session at the Avignon Forum (side-event to the G20) where
all stakeholders would be invited to participate: civil society, business
and the Internet technical community. 

On another note, ISOC, ISOC France, the W3C, the NRO and ICANN are preparing
a common press release for the upcoming eG8 (24-25 May), emphasizing the
WSIS heritage and the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach. 

Best regards,
Constance Bommelaer
  

-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of Divina MEIGS
Sent: vendredi 20 mai 2011 14:59
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: bommelaer at isoc.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Petition on G8

Dear all
A quick follow-up on our open letter to president Sarkozy:
    -it was sent to and acknowledged by the person close to the president in
charge of organizing the event
    -it was sent to and acknowldedged by the person at the Foreign affairs
ministry that follows internet governance issues
    -it was sent to Agence France Presse
    -it has receveid support by Ligue des droits de l'homme
    -Le Monde didn't publish it in its "debate" columns though it did
consider it  and it is going to report on the e-G8
    -it will be debated in two news-programmes on France Culture: "Un jour
sur la toile" (next weekend) and "enjeux internationaux" (30 may)

Please note the proposed action of the French "Quadrature du net" at this
address:

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eg8-forum-a-smokescreen-for-governmental-cont
rol-of-the-net

There is this idea, rapidly discussed with Constance Bommelaer from ISOC, to
do a civil society/technical community event prior to G20 in Cannes ...

Please let us exchange, if you have other contacts or other news of
activities  

Best 
divina

Le 20/05/11 05:58, « Jeremy Malcolm » <jeremy at ciroap.org> a écrit :

> On 19/05/2011, at 10:37 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> 
>> People may be interested to add their names to this petition
>> 
>> https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/g8-protect-the-net
> 
> Their letter is a fork of ours (and references us).


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

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

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


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 20 09:55:47 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 15:55:47 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Petition on G8
References: <20110520131133.6B8FF4B918@npogroups.org>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C007@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I fully support the "side-event approach" for the case we are not invited.  The proposed Press Release is a good idea. BTW, the multistakeholder concept gets also full support by the draft OECD principles and th Whitehouse Statement  on the US International Strategy for Cyberspace.  However there is still a lot to do, also in clarifying what "CS" is and what the role of the stakeholders is if we want to move from lip service to sustainable, inclusive and transparent actions.  
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Constance Bommelaer
Gesendet: Fr 20.05.2011 15:10
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Divina MEIGS'
Betreff: RE: [governance] Petition on G8



Thanks, Divina.

In future G8 and G20 forums, it would be nice to hold a side event or simply
participate to a session at the Avignon Forum (side-event to the G20) where
all stakeholders would be invited to participate: civil society, business
and the Internet technical community.

On another note, ISOC, ISOC France, the W3C, the NRO and ICANN are preparing
a common press release for the upcoming eG8 (24-25 May), emphasizing the
WSIS heritage and the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach.

Best regards,
Constance Bommelaer
 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of Divina MEIGS
Sent: vendredi 20 mai 2011 14:59
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: bommelaer at isoc.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Petition on G8

Dear all
A quick follow-up on our open letter to president Sarkozy:
    -it was sent to and acknowledged by the person close to the president in
charge of organizing the event
    -it was sent to and acknowldedged by the person at the Foreign affairs
ministry that follows internet governance issues
    -it was sent to Agence France Presse
    -it has receveid support by Ligue des droits de l'homme
    -Le Monde didn't publish it in its "debate" columns though it did
consider it  and it is going to report on the e-G8
    -it will be debated in two news-programmes on France Culture: "Un jour
sur la toile" (next weekend) and "enjeux internationaux" (30 may)

Please note the proposed action of the French "Quadrature du net" at this
address:

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eg8-forum-a-smokescreen-for-governmental-cont
rol-of-the-net

There is this idea, rapidly discussed with Constance Bommelaer from ISOC, to
do a civil society/technical community event prior to G20 in Cannes ...

Please let us exchange, if you have other contacts or other news of
activities 

Best
divina

Le 20/05/11 05:58, « Jeremy Malcolm » <jeremy at ciroap.org> a écrit :

> On 19/05/2011, at 10:37 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>> People may be interested to add their names to this petition
>>
>> https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/g8-protect-the-net
>
> Their letter is a fork of ours (and references us).


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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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


From nhklein at gmx.net  Fri May 20 10:17:21 2011
From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 21:17:21 +0700
Subject: [governance] Petition on G8
In-Reply-To: <C9FC3231.20F86%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <C9FC3231.20F86%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <4DD677F1.2090305@gmx.net>

Really good job done.


Norbert Klein

=

On 05/20/2011 07:58 PM, Divina MEIGS wrote:
> Dear all
> A quick follow-up on our open letter to president Sarkozy:
>      -it was sent to and acknowledged by the person close to the president in
> charge of organizing the event
>      -it was sent to and acknowldedged by the person at the Foreign affairs
> ministry that follows internet governance issues
>      -it was sent to Agence France Presse
>      -it has receveid support by Ligue des droits de l'homme
>      -Le Monde didn't publish it in its "debate" columns though it did
> consider it  and it is going to report on the e-G8
>      -it will be debated in two news-programmes on France Culture: "Un jour
> sur la toile" (next weekend) and "enjeux internationaux" (30 may)
>
> Please note the proposed action of the French "Quadrature du net" at this
> address:
>
> http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eg8-forum-a-smokescreen-for-governmental-cont
> rol-of-the-net
>
> There is this idea, rapidly discussed with Constance Bommelaer from ISOC, to
> do a civil society/technical community event prior to G20 in Cannes ...
>
> Please let us exchange, if you have other contacts or other news of
> activities
>
> Best
> divina

-- 
Since 3 April 2011, The Mirror with reports and comments from Cambodia - originally since 1997 based on daily translations from the Khmer language press, is now only an archive of the past: http://www.cambodiamirror.org

But I started a new personal blog:

...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia
http://www.thinking21.org/

continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia.

Norbert Klein
nhklein at gmx.net
Phnom Penh / Cambodia


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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Fri May 20 10:19:22 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 10:19:22 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Petition on G8
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C007@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <20110520131133.6B8FF4B918@npogroups.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C007@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <4009DF62-7296-42CD-AC06-154DD61A7D01@ella.com>

+1
i.e. what he said.
a.

On 20 May 2011, at 09:55, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> I fully support the "side-event approach" for the case we are not invited.  The proposed Press Release is a good idea. BTW, the multistakeholder concept gets also full support by the draft OECD principles and th Whitehouse Statement  on the US International Strategy for Cyberspace.  However there is still a lot to do, also in clarifying what "CS" is and what the role of the stakeholders is if we want to move from lip service to sustainable, inclusive and transparent actions.  
> 
> wolfgang
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Constance Bommelaer
> Gesendet: Fr 20.05.2011 15:10
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Divina MEIGS'
> Betreff: RE: [governance] Petition on G8
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Divina.
> 
> In future G8 and G20 forums, it would be nice to hold a side event or simply
> participate to a session at the Avignon Forum (side-event to the G20) where
> all stakeholders would be invited to participate: civil society, business
> and the Internet technical community.
> 
> On another note, ISOC, ISOC France, the W3C, the NRO and ICANN are preparing
> a common press release for the upcoming eG8 (24-25 May), emphasizing the
> WSIS heritage and the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach.
> 
> Best regards,
> Constance Bommelaer
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
> Of Divina MEIGS
> Sent: vendredi 20 mai 2011 14:59
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: bommelaer at isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Petition on G8
> 
> Dear all
> A quick follow-up on our open letter to president Sarkozy:
>    -it was sent to and acknowledged by the person close to the president in
> charge of organizing the event
>    -it was sent to and acknowldedged by the person at the Foreign affairs
> ministry that follows internet governance issues
>    -it was sent to Agence France Presse
>    -it has receveid support by Ligue des droits de l'homme
>    -Le Monde didn't publish it in its "debate" columns though it did
> consider it  and it is going to report on the e-G8
>    -it will be debated in two news-programmes on France Culture: "Un jour
> sur la toile" (next weekend) and "enjeux internationaux" (30 may)
> 
> Please note the proposed action of the French "Quadrature du net" at this
> address:
> 
> http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eg8-forum-a-smokescreen-for-governmental-cont
> rol-of-the-net
> 
> There is this idea, rapidly discussed with Constance Bommelaer from ISOC, to
> do a civil society/technical community event prior to G20 in Cannes ...
> 
> Please let us exchange, if you have other contacts or other news of
> activities 
> 
> Best
> divina
> 
> Le 20/05/11 05:58, « Jeremy Malcolm » <jeremy at ciroap.org> a écrit :
> 
>> On 19/05/2011, at 10:37 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> 
>>> People may be interested to add their names to this petition
>>> 
>>> https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/g8-protect-the-net
>> 
>> Their letter is a fork of ours (and references us).
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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


From cveraq at gmail.com  Fri May 20 10:38:49 2011
From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 14:38:49 +0000
Subject: AW: [governance] Petition on G8
In-Reply-To: <4009DF62-7296-42CD-AC06-154DD61A7D01@ella.com>
References: <20110520131133.6B8FF4B918@npogroups.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C007@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><4009DF62-7296-42CD-AC06-154DD61A7D01@ella.com>
Message-ID: <1521527775-1305902328-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-977616345-@b14.c2.bise6.blackberry>

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 10:19:22 
To: IGC<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Petition on G8

+1
i.e. what he said.
a.

On 20 May 2011, at 09:55, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> I fully support the "side-event approach" for the case we are not invited.  The proposed Press Release is a good idea. BTW, the multistakeholder concept gets also full support by the draft OECD principles and th Whitehouse Statement  on the US International Strategy for Cyberspace.  However there is still a lot to do, also in clarifying what "CS" is and what the role of the stakeholders is if we want to move from lip service to sustainable, inclusive and transparent actions.  
> 
> wolfgang
> 
>________________________________
> 
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Constance Bommelaer
> Gesendet: Fr 20.05.2011 15:10
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Divina MEIGS'
> Betreff: RE: [governance] Petition on G8
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Divina.
> 
> In future G8 and G20 forums, it would be nice to hold a side event or simply
> participate to a session at the Avignon Forum (side-event to the G20) where
> all stakeholders would be invited to participate: civil society, business
> and the Internet technical community.
> 
> On another note, ISOC, ISOC France, the W3C, the NRO and ICANN are preparing
> a common press release for the upcoming eG8 (24-25 May), emphasizing the
> WSIS heritage and the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach.
> 
> Best regards,
> Constance Bommelaer
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
> Of Divina MEIGS
> Sent: vendredi 20 mai 2011 14:59
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: bommelaer at isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Petition on G8
> 
> Dear all
> A quick follow-up on our open letter to president Sarkozy:
>    -it was sent to and acknowledged by the person close to the president in
> charge of organizing the event
>    -it was sent to and acknowldedged by the person at the Foreign affairs
> ministry that follows internet governance issues
>    -it was sent to Agence France Presse
>    -it has receveid support by Ligue des droits de l'homme
>    -Le Monde didn't publish it in its "debate" columns though it did
> consider it  and it is going to report on the e-G8
>    -it will be debated in two news-programmes on France Culture: "Un jour
> sur la toile" (next weekend) and "enjeux internationaux" (30 may)
> 
> Please note the proposed action of the French "Quadrature du net" at this
> address:
> 
> http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eg8-forum-a-smokescreen-for-governmental-cont
> rol-of-the-net
> 
> There is this idea, rapidly discussed with Constance Bommelaer from ISOC, to
> do a civil society/technical community event prior to G20 in Cannes ...
> 
> Please let us exchange, if you have other contacts or other news of
> activities 
> 
> Best
> divina
> 
> Le 20/05/11 05:58, « Jeremy Malcolm » <jeremy at ciroap.org> a écrit :
> 
>> On 19/05/2011, at 10:37 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> 
>>> People may be interested to add their names to this petition
>>> 
>>> https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/g8-protect-the-net
>> 
>> Their letter is a fork of ours (and references us).
> 
> 
>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 20 10:26:40 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 23:26:40 +0900
Subject: [governance] Petition on G8
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C007@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <20110520131133.6B8FF4B918@npogroups.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C007@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikBtWL58sr6NBV8v3ad9qc7a0+krg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Divina for the detailed follow-up, and yes, side-event approach will be
constructive and clear to demonstrate the role of civil society and
multi-stakeholder
participation.

izumi


2011/5/20 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
> I fully support the "side-event approach" for the case we are not invited.  The proposed Press Release is a good idea. BTW, the multistakeholder concept gets also full support by the draft OECD principles and th Whitehouse Statement  on the US International Strategy for Cyberspace.  However there is still a lot to do, also in clarifying what "CS" is and what the role of the stakeholders is if we want to move from lip service to sustainable, inclusive and transparent actions.
>
> wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Constance Bommelaer
> Gesendet: Fr 20.05.2011 15:10
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Divina MEIGS'
> Betreff: RE: [governance] Petition on G8
>
>
>
> Thanks, Divina.
>
> In future G8 and G20 forums, it would be nice to hold a side event or simply
> participate to a session at the Avignon Forum (side-event to the G20) where
> all stakeholders would be invited to participate: civil society, business
> and the Internet technical community.
>
> On another note, ISOC, ISOC France, the W3C, the NRO and ICANN are preparing
> a common press release for the upcoming eG8 (24-25 May), emphasizing the
> WSIS heritage and the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach.
>
> Best regards,
> Constance Bommelaer
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
> Of Divina MEIGS
> Sent: vendredi 20 mai 2011 14:59
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: bommelaer at isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Petition on G8
>
> Dear all
> A quick follow-up on our open letter to president Sarkozy:
>    -it was sent to and acknowledged by the person close to the president in
> charge of organizing the event
>    -it was sent to and acknowldedged by the person at the Foreign affairs
> ministry that follows internet governance issues
>    -it was sent to Agence France Presse
>    -it has receveid support by Ligue des droits de l'homme
>    -Le Monde didn't publish it in its "debate" columns though it did
> consider it  and it is going to report on the e-G8
>    -it will be debated in two news-programmes on France Culture: "Un jour
> sur la toile" (next weekend) and "enjeux internationaux" (30 may)
>
> Please note the proposed action of the French "Quadrature du net" at this
> address:
>
> http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eg8-forum-a-smokescreen-for-governmental-cont
> rol-of-the-net
>
> There is this idea, rapidly discussed with Constance Bommelaer from ISOC, to
> do a civil society/technical community event prior to G20 in Cannes ...
>
> Please let us exchange, if you have other contacts or other news of
> activities
>
> Best
> divina
>
> Le 20/05/11 05:58, « Jeremy Malcolm » <jeremy at ciroap.org> a écrit :
>
>> On 19/05/2011, at 10:37 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>
>>> People may be interested to add their names to this petition
>>>
>>> https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/g8-protect-the-net
>>
>> Their letter is a fork of ours (and references us).
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<
          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
                              www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri May 20 12:36:28 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 18:36:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] Workshop 10 - IGC proposal
In-Reply-To: <4DD63774.6070700@eff.org>
References: <4DD63774.6070700@eff.org>
Message-ID: <0F87B083-2E12-42DD-AF56-0A405CD07AFF@ciroap.org>

On 20/05/2011, at 11:42 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

> In order to close the loop on the latest discussions on the status of Workshop 10 (Indian proposal - IGF improvement), I am pleased to report that the IGC workshop 10 remains intact as requested by the IGC moderators/responsible of the session.

Good work and thanks to you and everyone else who is there.

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

Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. 
www.consumersinternational.org
Twitter @Consumers_Int

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

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

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri May 20 19:37:14 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 06:37:14 +0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [chineseinternetresearch] GT on "Dark undertones
 of US cyberspace diplomacy"
Message-ID: <1DC1AB1F9441428F8BAF6CB120E3B842@userPC>

Global Times is the English international edition of the China People's
Daily.
 
M
 
-----Original Message-----
From: chineseinternetresearch at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:chineseinternetresearch at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gerald Groot
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 1:39 PM
To: 'chinese internet research'
Subject: [chineseinternetresearch] GT on "Dark undertones of US cyberspace
diplomacy"


  

Dark undertones of US cyberspace diplomacy

Source: Global Times
[00:38 May 18 2011]
http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2011-05/656192.html

The White House rolled out its International Strategy for Cyberspace on
Monday, a carefully worded plan, which the US claims will help "build on
cyberspace's successes and help secure its future - for the United States,
and the global community."

This is to formally strategize the Internet freedom diplomacy that has been
defended by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton since early last year.

A borderless cyber world with a free flow of information and maximum
economic benefits is an ideal situation, except that the standard is set by
the US, which would "combine diplomacy, defense and development" to reach
this vaguely stated goal.

Countries still at the receiving end of online information are at the stage
of better integrating cyberspace into everyday life, to which end necessary
Internet regulation is needed to ensure a fair and balanced online world.

US Internet freedom diplomacy has its precedents, for example, the Voice of
America, whose fate is clear to us all. The Internet freedom of the US has
received attention in other countries, but many others think it is another
tool to impose a US worldview, and that more strict controls are needed to
prevent the damage these conceptions may wreak. Furthermore, countries with
differing ideologies are often subject to Internet freedom censure by the
US.

A well-regulated Internet is conducive to an orderly society, but if online
irrationality is extended to the real world upon being stoked, the public
will have to pay for the consequences.

The key for China is to secure its cyber order and security with its own
technology. Internet regulation is necessary in China, as in other
countries, however the country should not stay defensively minded but move
toward a more efficient approach toward online public opinion.

The Internet has a profound impact on the real world, but it is still a
virtual place. At first glance, cyberspace in China contains many angry
voices, but to what extent can they represent the public in the real world?
A slight number of Chinese netizens, 477 million in total, making complaints
can result in a pretty big volume. The situation today often is that a few
loud voices dominate the online agenda.

Where do those who do not go online acquire their political ideas?
Policymaking needs to take a comprehensive view of public opinion, not
listen to a few disturbing Internet po



__._,_.___
Reply
<mailto:gerry.groot at adelaide.edu.au?subject=Re%3A%20GT%20on%20%22Dark%20unde
rtones%20of%20US%20cyberspace%20diplomacy%22> to sender | Reply
<mailto:chineseinternetresearch at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20GT%20on%20%2
2Dark%20undertones%20of%20US%20cyberspace%20diplomacy%22> to group | Reply
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chineseinternetresearch/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwN3B
iOW41BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1MDA1MDcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDA0OTI0BG1zZ0lkAzQ
0MTUEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMzA1ODczNTQy?act=reply&messageNum=4415>
via web post | Start
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chineseinternetresearch/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYjI
4bTZzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1MDA1MDcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDA0OTI0BHNlYwNmdHI
Ec2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTMwNTg3MzU0Mg--> a New Topic 
Messages
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chineseinternetresearch/message/4415;_ylc=X3o
DMTM0NjJ0dHVlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1MDA1MDcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDA0OTI0BG1
zZ0lkAzQ0MTUEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMzA1ODczNTQyBHRwY0lkAzQ0MTU->
in this topic (1) 
Recent Activity: 

*	New
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chineseinternetresearch/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJm
Y29pb2d0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1MDA1MDcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDA0OTI0BHNlYwN2
dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzMDU4NzM1NDI-?o=6> Members 1 

Visit
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chineseinternetresearch;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZXJrZDFi
BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1MDA1MDcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDA0OTI0BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xr
A3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTMwNTg3MzU0Mg--> Your Group 
MARKETPLACE

Stay
<http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15op45qr5/M=493064.14543979.14365478.132984
30/D=groups/S=1705004924:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1305880742/L=d9f97132-82ab-11e0-bd
e2-1320559748d2/B=9Za5T9j8fbg-/J=1305873542941016/K=dRoQj.q8FGKiUuikO3cPmA/A
=6060255/R=0/SIG=1194m4keh/*http://us.toolbar.yahoo.com/?.cpdl=grpj> on top
of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo!
Toolbar now.

 
  _____  


Get
<http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15ob4v8be/M=493064.14543977.14365476.108355
68/D=groups/S=1705004924:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1305880742/L=d9f97132-82ab-11e0-bd
e2-1320559748d2/B=9pa5T9j8fbg-/J=1305873542941016/K=dRoQj.q8FGKiUuikO3cPmA/A
=6078812/R=0/SIG=114ae4ln1/*http://dogandcatanswers.yahoo.com/> great advice
about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

 
 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaDRzbTByBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1M
DA1MDcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDA0OTI0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzA1ODczNTQy>
Yahoo! Groups 
Switch to: Text-Only
<mailto:chineseinternetresearch-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change
Delivery Format: Traditional> , Daily
<mailto:chineseinternetresearch-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email
Delivery: Digest> Digest . Unsubscribe
<mailto:chineseinternetresearch-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscr
ibe>  . Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> 
.
 
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=2500507/grpspId=1705004924/msgId
=4415/stime=1305873542/nc1=5741391/nc2=3848641/nc3=4836039> 

__,_._,___
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110521/e01b578e/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 uzh.ch  Sat May 21 03:51:47 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 09:51:47 +0200
Subject: [governance] GigaNet Nairobi CFP
Message-ID: <63B5BB27-0B07-48A0-BB7A-D7855826D318@uzh.ch>

GIGANET

Global Internet Governance Academic Network

 

in co-operation with

Research ICT Africa

 

 

 

CALL FOR PAPERS

Sixth Annual Symposium

 

26 September 2011

Nairobi, Kenya

 

 

The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GIGANET), in co-operation with the Research ICT Africa (RIA), is seeking submissions of research about Internet Governance to be presented at the Sixth GigaNet Annual Symposium, held on 26 September 2011, one day before the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Nairobi, Kenya.

 

Since 2006, GigaNet has organized an Annual Symposium to showcase research about Internet Governance, focusing on an interdisciplinary approach. Prior successful symposia took place in Greece (2006), Brazil (2007), India (2008), Egypt (2009) and Lithuania (2010).

 

In 2011, the Internet Governance Forum has entered its second phase, after having reached the end of its first 5-years mandate. This year’s event will provide room to discuss the challenges encountered and results achieved during the first five years of IGF. As in previous years the GigaNet Symposium will further discuss current and future questions of Global Internet Governance.

 

 

Organizers

 

GigaNet is a scholarly community that promotes the development of Internet Governance as a recognized, interdisciplinary field of study and facilitates informed dialogue on policy issues and related matters between scholars and governments, international organizations, the private sector and civil society. http://giga-net.org/

 

Research ICT Africa is a network of researchers in 20 African countries conducting research on ICT policy and regulation and facilitating evidence-based and informed policy making for improved access, use and application of ICT for social development and economic growth.

http://www.researchictafrica.net/

Symposium Themes

 

GigaNet is interested in receiving abstracts related to Internet Governance themes, especially those containing innovative approaches and/or emerging research areas. We encourage submissions on the following topics: 

 

§  The first 5 years of the IGF: Taking stock and the way forward

§  Developing countries perspectives on internet governance

§  New approaches to theorizing internet governance

§  Between global and local: the question of territory in internet governance

§  Freedom of Expression / Right to Information

§  New approaches to Human Rights on the Internet

§  Internet governance and political uprising

§  International relations and cyber-security

§  Online privacy and dataveillance

§  Cloud Governance

 

Other proposals on more general questions of Global Internet Governance will also be considered.

 

 

 

Submissions

 

Interested scholars should submit abstracts of research paper not later 15 July 2011, through Easy Chair platform at:

https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=giganet2011.

 

Paper proposals should be submitted following theses requirements:

§  An abstract of 800-1000 words, in English, where it is mandatory to describe the main research goal(s) and the methodological background of the paper

§  A one-page curriculum vitae focused on institutional affiliations, advanced degrees, scholarly publications and work in the field of Internet Governance and related issues (for example ICTs).

 

 

 

Evaluation Process

 

The Program Committee members will evaluate the abstracts submitted and decisions will be sent to applicants by email on August 1st.

 

Accepted papers for oral presentations should be followed by a full research paper, to be sent by September 15th. Some quality papers submitted that are not accepted for oral presentations will be recommended for poster presentations.

 

Accepted speakers and poster presenters’ submissions and final papers will be published on the GigaNet website.

Registration process

 

The GigaNet Annual Symposium is free of charge. However, a registration process will be required close to the event. Please continue visiting our website for further information about registration, venue and accommodation.

 

 

Financial Assistance

 

One outstanding accepted paper by an African researcher may be awarded financial support by the Research ICT Africa. This support includes a travel grant up to US $ 1.000,00 to facilitate the participation of (emerging) African scholars who otherwise would not be able to attend. If available, information regarding additional scholarship options will be available following notification of acceptance.

 

 

GigaNet 2011 Program Committee

 

§  Leo Van Audenhove – PC Chair, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

§  Roy Balleste – St. Thomas University, Miami, USA

§  William Drake - University of Zurich, Switzerland

§  Dmitry Epstein – Cornell University, USA

§  Marianne Franklin – Goldsmiths University London, UK

§  Raquel Gatto – Catholic University of São Paulo, Brazil

§  Alison Gillwald – Director Research ICT Africa

§  Nanette Levinson – American University, USA

§  Milton Mueller – Syracuse University, USA

§  Rolf H. Weber – University of Zurich, Switzerland

 

 

Schedule Summary

 

July 15th: abstract submission deadline

August 1st: notification of acceptance

September 15th: submission deadline for complete papers

September 26th: Sixth Annual GigaNet Symposium

 

 

 

If you have any question related to the submission or the symposium activities, please e-mail the Program Committee Chair: leo.van.audenhove at vub.ac.be





















--Please note new email address--

***************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch
www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake
www.williamdrake.org
****************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110521/baf40335/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  Sat May 21 11:47:05 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 17:47:05 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] remote participation via standardized protocols
 (was Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <pI1zQANuHi1NFASp@internetpolicyagency.com> (message from Roland
	Perry on Fri, 20 May 2011 09:10:22 +0100)
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518145755.A98BA15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <SiGdq8SlD$0NFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519075934.696A515C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <eAJ+SDgdgR1NFAFT@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519150245.E271B15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <7RTn2Fu0kT1NFAgM@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519161725.4342615C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <pI1zQANuHi1NFASp@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <20110521154705.55F2915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

Sigh. Roland, did you truly not understand that in this entire
thread what I'm talking about is that in my opinion, there is
not enough practical emphasis on standardization of protocols
and data formats for communication via the internet (in the
sense of formal development of suitable open standards and their
adoption), and that this lack of emphasis is (of course together
with other factors) causing practical problems?

Greetings,
Norbert


Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message <20110519161725.4342615C0DF at quill.bollow.ch>, at 18:17:25 on 
> Thu, 19 May 2011, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
> >Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> >> >which is at odds with my experience with a very typical set-up of the
> >> >latter.
> >>
> >> One of the problems with *nix is that its advantages are traded off
> >> against what seems to me to be a much restricted degree of "plug and
> >> play". Not surprising given the almost infinite combinations available.
> >
> >The path to solve this kind of problems is standardization.
> >
> >Why do you oppose that?
> 
> I don't. If everyone used the same "standard" version of Windows, and 
> Apple and Linux were banned, everything would have a much better chance 
> of installing immediately. That's the theory behind those application 
> developers who say "I know for sure that this works in Internet 
> Explorer, use it on other browsers at your peril".
> 
> On the other hand, I also realise that diversity is good, and the 
> Internet is better suited than many other technologies at allowing 
> people to carve their own applications and platforms. But if you go down 
> that route, you have to accept that there will be teething problems.
> 
> I speak as someone who, having surveyed the early browser market and 
> found issues with the only two candidates at the time (Netscape and 
> Microsoft) commissioned some people to write a new browser - which we 
> shipped for free with subscriptions to the ISP I was managing.
> 
> Another bunch of people came to the same decision over email clients, 
> and I'm still using the one they wrote, 16 years later. Unfortunately, 
> standards even for things like email keep changing, and the client is 
> showing its age.
> 
> >> >Maybe I should also mention that assertions that the "solution" "works
> >> >now" and "we should embrace it" are rather unfriendly things to say to
> >> >someone who was just locked out from being able to participate because
> >> >what "works now" doesn't for everyone and even the fall-back option of
> >> >live transcripts + email isn't made avalable, presumably as a result
> >> >of a mistaken belief that the Abobe "solution" works for everyone?
> >>
> >> Email was available
> >
> >I find your repeated assertions to the contrary of my experience very
> >frustrating.
> 
> Your experience was that the email was ignored. I don't think there was 
> a *technical* issue with it being delivered (unless you have not told us 
> that it bounced back).
> 
> >> (although I didn't see any evidence that it was used
> >> by anyone)
> >
> >As I wrote, my timely and appropriate attempt to communicate by email
> >was ignored.
> 
> That's not the fault of the email protocol. There was an ICANN meeting 
> quite a few years ago, when their remote participation was in its 
> infancy, and the only way I could communicate with the room was by 
> emailing one of the board members sitting on the platform!
> 
> During this week's meetings in Geneva, due to problems with the 
> connectivity and the reluctance of the ITU's remote moderator to 
> interrupt the meeting as often as the Adobe remote participants might 
> have wished, the best way to participate was by Skype to people in the 
> room. I know that the Caucus has used Skype in this way in the past - 
> it's up to the co-ordinators in the room to set this up.
> 
> >> >(Yesterday the "live transcript" was working but a timely intervention
> >> >that I submitted by email got ignored, probably because nobody was
> >> >watching the email address that had been provided, and today the "live
> >> >transcript" links just give the message "Event is not active".)
> >>
> >> There's a new link for each session, and I did notice that this
> >> afternoon's link was erroneously pointing at the morning session.
> >>
> >> eg: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=MAGam&chat=no
> >> vs: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=MAGpm&chat=no
> >
> >During the morning session, the morning session link also didn't
> >work.
> 
> I didn't make a note of the link I used in the morning.
> 
> >> That's a webmastering/editing issue
> >
> >and a "lack of testing / double-checking" issue.
> 
> Yes, that's a problem that any organisation faces when setting up remote 
> participation. It's very difficult to get everything right at the first 
> attempt. The reason why ICANN and RIR remote participation works fairly 
> smoothly is because they've had lots of practice, and why the RIR I used 
> to work with, offered assistance for Vilnius.
> 
> But even then you still get sessions where one problem or another means 
> remote participants don't get the feed properly (missing sound is one of 
> the most common, as I hinted yesterday).
> 
> >> not a technology one!
> >
> >Agreed. But why didn't anyone (with the power to get issues fixed)
> >check that the links work?
> 
> Experience, lack of time, any number of reasons why it's hard to make 
> things run exactly to plan. They did a comprehensive sound check at the 
> beginning of day 1, which was good. But things still went wrong later in 
> the meeting.
> 
> >Wouldn't chances be that it'd be checked have been better if there had
> >been awareness that the Adobe "solution" doesn't work for everyone?
> 
> Not at all, the presence of the chat window alongside the webcast made 
> it very easy for participants to exchange notes between themselves and 
> the ITU technician, regarding issues such as the sound quality.
> 
> >>> Isn't the kind of violence which is present here precisely the
> >>> refusal of fairness with regard to openness of interfaces?
> >>
> >> The fairest thing to do is deploy a solution that's instantly available
> >> to the largest number of users. It would be even more unfair to deny
> >> that to them. Fairness is not ensuring that everyone is equally poorly
> >> serviced.
> >
> >I'm not asking for downgrading of service for anyone.
> 
> Banning Adobe, for the reasons you given, would downgrade the service 
> that I get. Unless you are aware of a substitute which is "better", and 
> conforms to your requirements for "open-ness". I'm not aware of any such 
> application (see also my replies to Avri).
> 
> >But I'm asking you to stop pretending that the problems which I'm
> >pointing out don't exits
> 
> Of course there are problems, all remote participation solutions have 
> problems. What we need to understand is whether the currently deployed 
> technology is less likely to demonstrate problems overall, than other 
> ways of doing it.
> 
> >or are irrelevant to internet governance.
> 
> They are relevant to the governance of meetings which happen to be about 
> Internet Governance. But that's a different thing. Imagine the meetings 
> were discussing planes and airports instead. Would Adobe connect then 
> become an "air traffic control" issue?
> -- 
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 21 11:51:35 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 21:21:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] Petition on G8
In-Reply-To: <20110520131136.6FCE14BA21@npogroups.org>
References: <20110520131136.6FCE14BA21@npogroups.org>
Message-ID: <4DD7DF87.6060707@itforchange.net>



On Friday 20 May 2011 06:40 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote:
> Thanks, Divina.
>
> In future G8 and G20 forums, it would be nice to hold a side event or simply
> participate to a session at the Avignon Forum (side-event to the G20) where
> all stakeholders would be invited to participate: civil society, business
> and the Internet technical community.
The point remains who will fund such a side event? Will civil society 
participants be able to attend? Our best bet is publicly funded events/ 
forums with clearly laid out funding support provisions. There is no 
multistakeholderism or participatory democracy without such proactive 
measures in place. Parminder
> On another note, ISOC, ISOC France, the W3C, the NRO and ICANN are preparing
> a common press release for the upcoming eG8 (24-25 May), emphasizing the
> WSIS heritage and the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach.
>
> Best regards,
> Constance Bommelaer
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
> Of Divina MEIGS
> Sent: vendredi 20 mai 2011 14:59
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: bommelaer at isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Petition on G8
>
> Dear all
> A quick follow-up on our open letter to president Sarkozy:
>      -it was sent to and acknowledged by the person close to the president in
> charge of organizing the event
>      -it was sent to and acknowldedged by the person at the Foreign affairs
> ministry that follows internet governance issues
>      -it was sent to Agence France Presse
>      -it has receveid support by Ligue des droits de l'homme
>      -Le Monde didn't publish it in its "debate" columns though it did
> consider it  and it is going to report on the e-G8
>      -it will be debated in two news-programmes on France Culture: "Un jour
> sur la toile" (next weekend) and "enjeux internationaux" (30 may)
>
> Please note the proposed action of the French "Quadrature du net" at this
> address:
>
> http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eg8-forum-a-smokescreen-for-governmental-cont
> rol-of-the-net
>
> There is this idea, rapidly discussed with Constance Bommelaer from ISOC, to
> do a civil society/technical community event prior to G20 in Cannes ...
>
> Please let us exchange, if you have other contacts or other news of
> activities
>
> Best
> divina
>
> Le 20/05/11 05:58, « Jeremy Malcolm »<jeremy at ciroap.org>  a écrit :
>
>> On 19/05/2011, at 10:37 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>
>>> People may be interested to add their names to this petition
>>>
>>> https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/g8-protect-the-net
>> Their letter is a fork of ours (and references us).
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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/20110521/ca1f5efc/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 amedinagomez at gmail.com  Sat May 21 12:02:54 2011
From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 11:02:54 -0500
Subject: [governance] Petition on G8
In-Reply-To: <4DD7DF87.6060707@itforchange.net>
References: <20110520131136.6FCE14BA21@npogroups.org>
	<4DD7DF87.6060707@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <BANLkTik+c0AeUba+_+XBy5vHHobspd4QLQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1
Antonio Medina

2011/5/21 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

>
>
> On Friday 20 May 2011 06:40 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote:
>
> Thanks, Divina.
>
> In future G8 and G20 forums, it would be nice to hold a side event or simply
> participate to a session at the Avignon Forum (side-event to the G20) where
> all stakeholders would be invited to participate: civil society, business
> and the Internet technical community.
>
>  The point remains who will fund such a side event? Will civil society
> participants be able to attend? Our best bet is publicly funded events/
> forums with clearly laid out funding support provisions. There is no
> multistakeholderism or participatory democracy without such proactive
> measures in place. Parminder
>
> On another note, ISOC, ISOC France, the W3C, the NRO and ICANN are preparing
> a common press release for the upcoming eG8 (24-25 May), emphasizing the
> WSIS heritage and the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach.
>
> Best regards,
> Constance Bommelaer
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org <governance at lists.cpsr.org>] On Behalf
> Of Divina MEIGS
> Sent: vendredi 20 mai 2011 14:59
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: bommelaer at isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Petition on G8
>
> Dear all
> A quick follow-up on our open letter to president Sarkozy:
>     -it was sent to and acknowledged by the person close to the president in
> charge of organizing the event
>     -it was sent to and acknowldedged by the person at the Foreign affairs
> ministry that follows internet governance issues
>     -it was sent to Agence France Presse
>     -it has receveid support by Ligue des droits de l'homme
>     -Le Monde didn't publish it in its "debate" columns though it did
> consider it  and it is going to report on the e-G8
>     -it will be debated in two news-programmes on France Culture: "Un jour
> sur la toile" (next weekend) and "enjeux internationaux" (30 may)
>
> Please note the proposed action of the French "Quadrature du net" at this
> address:
> http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eg8-forum-a-smokescreen-for-governmental-cont
> rol-of-the-net
>
> There is this idea, rapidly discussed with Constance Bommelaer from ISOC, to
> do a civil society/technical community event prior to G20 in Cannes ...
>
> Please let us exchange, if you have other contacts or other news of
> activities
>
> Best
> divina
>
> Le 20/05/11 05:58, « Jeremy Malcolm » <jeremy at ciroap.org> <jeremy at ciroap.org> a écrit :
>
>
>  On 19/05/2011, at 10:37 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>
>  People may be interested to add their names to this petition
> https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/g8-protect-the-net
>
>  Their letter is a fork of ours (and references us).
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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/20110521/28b474ce/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 katitza at eff.org  Sat May 21 12:19:23 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 18:19:23 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
Message-ID: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org>

Dear IGC members (plus other stakeholders in this list):

I want to inform civil society IGC members that only four civil society 
MAG members were able to attend the last Open Consultation and MAG 
meeting. The civil society MAG members were: Valeria Betancourt, Fouad 
Bawja, Graciela Selaimen, and myself.

It is important to understand that four civil society MAG members are 
not enough to allow civil society to effectively monitor and shape "all" 
the main sessions for the next IGF. During the OC, we have requested the 
IGF Secretariat to provide us with a better understanding of the current 
list of civil society MAG members, and the need to fill out those civil 
society slots in the MAG so we can keep the balance between all 
stakeholders.

In this MAG meeting, we were able to cover between 3-4 sessions. In the 
next days to come, we will be monitoring the other sessions (which will 
not be able to monitor in-situ) to make sure civil society voice is 
included. As a MAG member, my main concern is the SOP session. If you 
want to send me a "private message" about the issues that you consider 
should be discussed, please do so by sending an email to katitza at eff.org 
Our main input for discussion is the February Open Consultation where 
many of you (and other stakeholders) provided valuable comments, and we 
will work hard to ensure that those suggestions are included.

I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is open 
to other stakeholders including public authorities, government 
officials, technical community, and business sector representatives. 
Therefore, members need to understand that MAG members have a very 
difficult task to share strategies in a public list. Any public strategy 
that we can share here, can always harm our collective efforts in spaces 
where disclosing your strategy in advance is a big problem and can harm 
our work.

I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only 
members that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG 
members will be able to provide a better report after the meeting.

All the best, Katitza













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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Sat May 21 13:01:28 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 19:01:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DD7EFE8.8090808@eff.org>

Hi there,

I want to let you know that civil society members in Geneva worked 
extremely hard during the open consultation and the open MAG meeting. 
Those identify with civil society were: APC Anriette Esterhuysen and Joy 
Liddicoat, Marilia Maciel, Adam Peake, and Bill Drake. Please apologize 
me if I forgot of anyone else.

All the best,

Katitza


On 5/21/11 6:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Dear IGC members (plus other stakeholders in this list):
>
> I want to inform civil society IGC members that only four civil 
> society MAG members were able to attend the last Open Consultation and 
> MAG meeting. The civil society MAG members were: Valeria Betancourt, 
> Fouad Bawja, Graciela Selaimen, and myself.
>
> It is important to understand that four civil society MAG members are 
> not enough to allow civil society to effectively monitor and shape 
> "all" the main sessions for the next IGF. During the OC, we have 
> requested the IGF Secretariat to provide us with a better 
> understanding of the current list of civil society MAG members, and 
> the need to fill out those civil society slots in the MAG so we can 
> keep the balance between all stakeholders.
>
> In this MAG meeting, we were able to cover between 3-4 sessions. In 
> the next days to come, we will be monitoring the other sessions (which 
> will not be able to monitor in-situ) to make sure civil society voice 
> is included. As a MAG member, my main concern is the SOP session. If 
> you want to send me a "private message" about the issues that you 
> consider should be discussed, please do so by sending an email to 
> katitza at eff.org Our main input for discussion is the February Open 
> Consultation where many of you (and other stakeholders) provided 
> valuable comments, and we will work hard to ensure that those 
> suggestions are included.
>
> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is open 
> to other stakeholders including public authorities, government 
> officials, technical community, and business sector representatives. 
> Therefore, members need to understand that MAG members have a very 
> difficult task to share strategies in a public list. Any public 
> strategy that we can share here, can always harm our collective 
> efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy in advance is a big 
> problem and can harm our work.
>
> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only 
> members that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG 
> members will be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>
> All the best, Katitza
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 21 19:47:56 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 06:47:56 +0700
Subject: [governance] Petition on G8
In-Reply-To: <20110520131132.18B0F4B89D@npogroups.org>
Message-ID: <17C4A7F3E8DB44719F80DCD7D8A7F510@userPC>

Doesn't this take CS back to before the Rio Conference on the Environment
(on the outside looking wistfully, if sometimes noisily, in) but without a
sympathetic G8 government (in that case Canada) to support the side events.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of Constance Bommelaer
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 8:11 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Divina MEIGS'
Subject: RE: [governance] Petition on G8


Thanks, Divina.

In future G8 and G20 forums, it would be nice to hold a side event or simply
participate to a session at the Avignon Forum (side-event to the G20) where
all stakeholders would be invited to participate: civil society, business
and the Internet technical community. 

On another note, ISOC, ISOC France, the W3C, the NRO and ICANN are preparing
a common press release for the upcoming eG8 (24-25 May), emphasizing the
WSIS heritage and the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach. 

Best regards,
Constance Bommelaer
  

-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of Divina MEIGS
Sent: vendredi 20 mai 2011 14:59
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: bommelaer at isoc.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Petition on G8

Dear all
A quick follow-up on our open letter to president Sarkozy:
    -it was sent to and acknowledged by the person close to the president in
charge of organizing the event
    -it was sent to and acknowldedged by the person at the Foreign affairs
ministry that follows internet governance issues
    -it was sent to Agence France Presse
    -it has receveid support by Ligue des droits de l'homme
    -Le Monde didn't publish it in its "debate" columns though it did
consider it  and it is going to report on the e-G8
    -it will be debated in two news-programmes on France Culture: "Un jour
sur la toile" (next weekend) and "enjeux internationaux" (30 may)

Please note the proposed action of the French "Quadrature du net" at this
address:

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eg8-forum-a-smokescreen-for-governmental-cont
rol-of-the-net

There is this idea, rapidly discussed with Constance Bommelaer from ISOC, to
do a civil society/technical community event prior to G20 in Cannes ...

Please let us exchange, if you have other contacts or other news of
activities  

Best 
divina

Le 20/05/11 05:58, « Jeremy Malcolm » <jeremy at ciroap.org> a écrit :

> On 19/05/2011, at 10:37 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> 
>> People may be interested to add their names to this petition
>> 
>> https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/g8-protect-the-net
> 
> Their letter is a fork of ours (and references us).


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

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

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


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

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

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



!DSPAM:2676,4dd6689a40307557613783!

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Sat May 21 21:20:59 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 03:20:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] Remote Participants
In-Reply-To: <4DD7EFE8.8090808@eff.org>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <4DD7EFE8.8090808@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DD864FB.101@eff.org>

Hi there,

I want to thanks our most awesome remote participants Avri Doria. Thanks 
for being so active on the distance despite all the difficulties to 
convey a though through remote participation. It would be good if you 
can share your experience, the facts, and the good, the bad, and the 
ugly... Your experience can help others improve their work. Thanks you 
very much to Ginger, too!. All the best, Katitza
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun May 22 01:13:13 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 08:13:13 +0300
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimc=iveWfVEnvN7zAp47_rQ1+e8WA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

<snip>
> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to share
> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share here, can
> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy
> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.

It's not "us vs. them", rather in the collaborative Internet Model,
it's "us + them".

I would not be in favor of removal of transparency by creating a
separate list.  This is not a war, where intelligence is crucial.  The
other stakeholders know our perspective and what we want to achieve.
In other words, I don't think we have any secrets we need to hide, do
we?


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun May 22 03:07:53 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 09:07:53 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org>
 <BANLkTimc=iveWfVEnvN7zAp47_rQ1+e8WA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C015@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

McTim is right.
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von McTim
Gesendet: So 22.05.2011 07:13
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez
Betreff: Re: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.



On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

<snip>
> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to share
> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share here, can
> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy
> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.

It's not "us vs. them", rather in the collaborative Internet Model,
it's "us + them".

I would not be in favor of removal of transparency by creating a
separate list.  This is not a war, where intelligence is crucial.  The
other stakeholders know our perspective and what we want to achieve.
In other words, I don't think we have any secrets we need to hide, do
we?


--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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



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

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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun May 22 03:15:18 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 09:15:18 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <4DD7EFE8.8090808@eff.org>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C019@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Thanks Katitza,
 
any information about outcomes from the MAG meeting?  And who nis going to monitor (or make a statement) in the forthcoming UNCSTD meeting?
 
wolfgang
 
 

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Katitza Rodriguez
Gesendet: Sa 21.05.2011 19:01
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez
Betreff: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva



Hi there,

I want to let you know that civil society members in Geneva worked
extremely hard during the open consultation and the open MAG meeting.
Those identify with civil society were: APC Anriette Esterhuysen and Joy
Liddicoat, Marilia Maciel, Adam Peake, and Bill Drake. Please apologize
me if I forgot of anyone else.

All the best,

Katitza


On 5/21/11 6:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Dear IGC members (plus other stakeholders in this list):
>
> I want to inform civil society IGC members that only four civil
> society MAG members were able to attend the last Open Consultation and
> MAG meeting. The civil society MAG members were: Valeria Betancourt,
> Fouad Bawja, Graciela Selaimen, and myself.
>
> It is important to understand that four civil society MAG members are
> not enough to allow civil society to effectively monitor and shape
> "all" the main sessions for the next IGF. During the OC, we have
> requested the IGF Secretariat to provide us with a better
> understanding of the current list of civil society MAG members, and
> the need to fill out those civil society slots in the MAG so we can
> keep the balance between all stakeholders.
>
> In this MAG meeting, we were able to cover between 3-4 sessions. In
> the next days to come, we will be monitoring the other sessions (which
> will not be able to monitor in-situ) to make sure civil society voice
> is included. As a MAG member, my main concern is the SOP session. If
> you want to send me a "private message" about the issues that you
> consider should be discussed, please do so by sending an email to
> katitza at eff.org Our main input for discussion is the February Open
> Consultation where many of you (and other stakeholders) provided
> valuable comments, and we will work hard to ensure that those
> suggestions are included.
>
> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is open
> to other stakeholders including public authorities, government
> officials, technical community, and business sector representatives.
> Therefore, members need to understand that MAG members have a very
> difficult task to share strategies in a public list. Any public
> strategy that we can share here, can always harm our collective
> efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy in advance is a big
> problem and can harm our work.
>
> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only
> members that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG
> members will be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>
> All the best, Katitza
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


--
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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



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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Sun May 22 03:20:14 2011
From: hempalshrestha at gmail.com (Hempal Shrestha)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 13:05:14 +0545
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C015@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTimc=iveWfVEnvN7zAp47_rQ1+e8WA@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C015@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <BANLkTin1pXrGQ6YzNfy1Dis6bzG5-0pKmw@mail.gmail.com>

I can understand what Katiza is trying to share from her learnings and
challenges the team faces in such forums. But again is it not one of the
central issue we are united and championing for openness, collaboration and
transparency. We make our own way! My best wishes to the team.

With regards,

Hempal Shrestha
Kathmandu, Nepal

2011/5/22 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

> McTim is right.
>
> wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von McTim
> Gesendet: So 22.05.2011 07:13
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez
> Betreff: Re: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to share
> > strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share here,
> can
> > always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your
> strategy
> > in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>
> It's not "us vs. them", rather in the collaborative Internet Model,
> it's "us + them".
>
> I would not be in favor of removal of transparency by creating a
> separate list.  This is not a war, where intelligence is crucial.  The
> other stakeholders know our perspective and what we want to achieve.
> In other words, I don't think we have any secrets we need to hide, do
> we?
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110522/944b9e38/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 divina.meigs at orange.fr  Sun May 22 03:31:55 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 09:31:55 +0200
Subject: [governance] Petition on G8
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C007@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <C9FE888B.21086%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Hi 
I would like to concur with Wolfgang in the light of my experience at trying
to publicize our statement in the French press, and among leaders and
like-minded NGOs. 

The response of the journalists at Le Monde gave me food for thought: they
considered that our statement was not enough "punchy" and that there was no
indication of strategy or of action to take. Basically I got the feeling
from other respondents that we were too soft and that claiming only for
multi-stakeholderism didn't suffice to bring attention to the claims of CS.

We are at a disadvantage with NGOs like the ligue des droits de l'homme for
instance, because they can integrate internet governance in their agenda
with relative ease, and with precise arguments and strategies. Long-standing
NGOs, if properly sensitized, can thus be very powerful in pushing our
issues, though they may not have the acuteness of our entry perspective.

If we want to influence the process more, we may want a two-pronged
strategy: 
    -influence more the agenda of long-standing constituencies (users,
consumers, researchers) by providing them a rationale for internet
governance (not only multistakeholderism)
    -transform our own agenda, with less emphasis on multi-stakeholderism
now that it is more or less recognized (if not implemented) in fora like
OCDE, to focus more on key issues

In both cases, we need to be more incisive among ourselves about what we
want to achieve, what we want to press as a priority and with what other
partners in the world out there. I would plead as this point for a 10 point
"internet governance charter", as a defining tool for pushing strategy and
policy from our perspective in various fora, whether they are policy-shaping
like IGF or policy-making like G8/G20 or OCDE... (i'm not set on 10, by the
way :-))

Best
Divina 


Le 20/05/11 15:55, « Kleinwächter, Wolfgang »
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> a écrit :

> I fully support the "side-event approach" for the case we are not invited.
> The proposed Press Release is a good idea. BTW, the multistakeholder concept
> gets also full support by the draft OECD principles and th Whitehouse
> Statement  on the US International Strategy for Cyberspace.  However there is
> still a lot to do, also in clarifying what "CS" is and what the role of the
> stakeholders is if we want to move from lip service to sustainable, inclusive
> and transparent actions.
>  
> wolfgang
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Constance Bommelaer
> Gesendet: Fr 20.05.2011 15:10
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Divina MEIGS'
> Betreff: RE: [governance] Petition on G8
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Divina.
> 
> In future G8 and G20 forums, it would be nice to hold a side event or simply
> participate to a session at the Avignon Forum (side-event to the G20) where
> all stakeholders would be invited to participate: civil society, business
> and the Internet technical community.
> 
> On another note, ISOC, ISOC France, the W3C, the NRO and ICANN are preparing
> a common press release for the upcoming eG8 (24-25 May), emphasizing the
> WSIS heritage and the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach.
> 
> Best regards,
> Constance Bommelaer
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
> Of Divina MEIGS
> Sent: vendredi 20 mai 2011 14:59
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: bommelaer at isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Petition on G8
> 
> Dear all
> A quick follow-up on our open letter to president Sarkozy:
>     -it was sent to and acknowledged by the person close to the president in
> charge of organizing the event
>     -it was sent to and acknowldedged by the person at the Foreign affairs
> ministry that follows internet governance issues
>     -it was sent to Agence France Presse
>     -it has receveid support by Ligue des droits de l'homme
>     -Le Monde didn't publish it in its "debate" columns though it did
> consider it  and it is going to report on the e-G8
>     -it will be debated in two news-programmes on France Culture: "Un jour
> sur la toile" (next weekend) and "enjeux internationaux" (30 may)
> 
> Please note the proposed action of the French "Quadrature du net" at this
> address:
> 
> http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eg8-forum-a-smokescreen-for-governmental-cont
> rol-of-the-net
> 
> There is this idea, rapidly discussed with Constance Bommelaer from ISOC, to
> do a civil society/technical community event prior to G20 in Cannes ...
> 
> Please let us exchange, if you have other contacts or other news of
> activities 
> 
> Best
> divina
> 
> Le 20/05/11 05:58, « Jeremy Malcolm » <jeremy at ciroap.org> a écrit :
> 
>> On 19/05/2011, at 10:37 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> 
>>> People may be interested to add their names to this petition
>>> 
>>> https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/g8-protect-the-net
>> 
>> Their letter is a fork of ours (and references us).
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 


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

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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun May 22 04:11:48 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 10:11:48 +0200
Subject: [governance] Principles, G 20 and beyond
References: <C9FE888B.21086%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 
Divina:
 
In both cases, we need to be more incisive among ourselves about what we want to achieve, what we want to press as a priority and with what other partners in the world out there. I would plead as this point for a 10 point
"internet governance charter", as a defining tool for pushing strategy and policy from our perspective in various fora, whether they are policy-shaping like IGF or policy-making like G8/G20 or OCDE... (i'm not set on 10, by the
way :-))

Wolfgang
 
We did some drafting of principles in the past (APC and others), however in a time of change (from North-Africa to Spain to Turkey to elsewhere) we should - as CS/IGC - rethink those principles, based on the WSIS outcome and taking into acocunt new opportunities and challenges. We have to give also an aswer how CS wants to deal with issues like cybercrime which is a growing point for millions of individual users.  The workshops we have proposed for Nairobi are a very good interim step. A productive outcome from Nairobi could have an effect both to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA (which starts just after Nairobi and will deal with the future of the IGF) and the G 20 in Cannes. The Cannes side-event could become something like a continuation of the Nairobi workshops and aimed to develop a "CS Strategy for Cyberspace". 
 
BTW, both the COE and the OECD are working with "ten principles" and in the US Strategy you have also "ten principles" (p.10). I have compared the three documents and it is intersting if you only compare the titles of the principles in the three documents. (see attachment)
 
Best wishes
 
w
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To 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: Comparision OECD CEO US.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19111 bytes
Desc: Comparision OECD CEO US.docx
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110522/9ec0550d/attachment.docx>

From iza at anr.org  Sun May 22 04:18:32 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 17:18:32 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com>

As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the request
or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only list.

As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.

I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new list and
how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your reactions
first on the current list.

izumi


>
> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is open to
> other stakeholders including public authorities, government officials,
> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore, members
> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to share
> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share here, can
> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy
> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>
> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only members
> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG members will
> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>
> All the best, Katitza
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<
          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
                              www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Sun May 22 04:19:14 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 10:19:14 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C019@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <4DD7EFE8.8090808@eff.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C019@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <4DD8C702.7090406@eff.org>

Hi Wolfgang:

I am not familiar with the UNCSTD meeting. Anriette and Marilia are our 
representative there.

Katitza

On 5/22/11 9:15 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Thanks Katitza,
>
> any information about outcomes from the MAG meeting?  And who nis going to monitor (or make a statement) in the forthcoming UNCSTD meeting?
>
> wolfgang
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Katitza Rodriguez
> Gesendet: Sa 21.05.2011 19:01
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez
> Betreff: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva
>
>
>
> Hi there,
>
> I want to let you know that civil society members in Geneva worked
> extremely hard during the open consultation and the open MAG meeting.
> Those identify with civil society were: APC Anriette Esterhuysen and Joy
> Liddicoat, Marilia Maciel, Adam Peake, and Bill Drake. Please apologize
> me if I forgot of anyone else.
>
> All the best,
>
> Katitza
>
>
> On 5/21/11 6:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>> Dear IGC members (plus other stakeholders in this list):
>>
>> I want to inform civil society IGC members that only four civil
>> society MAG members were able to attend the last Open Consultation and
>> MAG meeting. The civil society MAG members were: Valeria Betancourt,
>> Fouad Bawja, Graciela Selaimen, and myself.
>>
>> It is important to understand that four civil society MAG members are
>> not enough to allow civil society to effectively monitor and shape
>> "all" the main sessions for the next IGF. During the OC, we have
>> requested the IGF Secretariat to provide us with a better
>> understanding of the current list of civil society MAG members, and
>> the need to fill out those civil society slots in the MAG so we can
>> keep the balance between all stakeholders.
>>
>> In this MAG meeting, we were able to cover between 3-4 sessions. In
>> the next days to come, we will be monitoring the other sessions (which
>> will not be able to monitor in-situ) to make sure civil society voice
>> is included. As a MAG member, my main concern is the SOP session. If
>> you want to send me a "private message" about the issues that you
>> consider should be discussed, please do so by sending an email to
>> katitza at eff.org Our main input for discussion is the February Open
>> Consultation where many of you (and other stakeholders) provided
>> valuable comments, and we will work hard to ensure that those
>> suggestions are included.
>>
>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is open
>> to other stakeholders including public authorities, government
>> officials, technical community, and business sector representatives.
>> Therefore, members need to understand that MAG members have a very
>> difficult task to share strategies in a public list. Any public
>> strategy that we can share here, can always harm our collective
>> efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy in advance is a big
>> problem and can harm our work.
>>
>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only
>> members that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG
>> members will be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>
>> All the best, Katitza
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> --
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Sun May 22 04:21:08 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 10:21:08 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimc=iveWfVEnvN7zAp47_rQ1+e8WA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTimc=iveWfVEnvN7zAp47_rQ1+e8WA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DD8C774.8040703@eff.org>

It would be ok if I also here their opinion  in this list. Many of your 
opinion harm us while we are there.
But if this is your opinion, I do not have time to fight against it.

All the best, Katitza

On 5/22/11 7:13 AM, McTim wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez<katitza at eff.org>  wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to share
>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share here, can
>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy
>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
> It's not "us vs. them", rather in the collaborative Internet Model,
> it's "us + them".
>
> I would not be in favor of removal of transparency by creating a
> separate list.  This is not a war, where intelligence is crucial.  The
> other stakeholders know our perspective and what we want to achieve.
> In other words, I don't think we have any secrets we need to hide, do
> we?
>
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Sun May 22 04:25:07 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 10:25:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD8C774.8040703@eff.org>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTimc=iveWfVEnvN7zAp47_rQ1+e8WA@mail.gmail.com> <4DD8C774.8040703@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DD8C863.2090507@eff.org>

If I also *hear* their opinion, especially from government officials and 
public authorities... who are in the list.

On 5/22/11 10:21 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> It would be ok if I also here their opinion  in this list. Many of 
> your opinion harm us while we are there.
> But if this is your opinion, I do not have time to fight against it.
>
> All the best, Katitza
>
> On 5/22/11 7:13 AM, McTim wrote:
>> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez<katitza at eff.org>  
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to share
>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share 
>>> here, can
>>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your 
>>> strategy
>>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>> It's not "us vs. them", rather in the collaborative Internet Model,
>> it's "us + them".
>>
>> I would not be in favor of removal of transparency by creating a
>> separate list.  This is not a war, where intelligence is crucial.  The
>> other stakeholders know our perspective and what we want to achieve.
>> In other words, I don't think we have any secrets we need to hide, do
>> we?
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun May 22 04:26:31 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 10:26:31 +0200
Subject: [governance] Towards Singapore
References: <C9FE888B.21086%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

FYI
 
http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/05/18/high-noon-in-singapore

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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Sun May 22 04:32:28 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 10:32:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu>

Hi,

we've had this discussion about different lists countless times before. 
Fortunately, I think, there was never a majority for those who argued in 
favor of differentiating between IGF as an open multistakeholder 
platform and IGC as a civil society advocacy organization. It seems 
unlikely that a new discussion would lead to different results. 
Therefore, if possible, lets not indulge in this issue again.

My pragmatic suggestion would be to form informal and temporary 
subgroups for issues that need non-public coordination. The membership 
in such subgroups would be hand-picked and thus intransparent. Since 
statements on behalf of the IGC would still need voting, I don't see a 
problem with that.

jeanette



On 22.05.2011 10:18, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the request
> or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only list.
>
> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
> If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
> coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>
> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new list and
> how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your reactions
> first on the current list.
>
> izumi
>
>
>>
>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is open to
>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government officials,
>> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore, members
>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to share
>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share here, can
>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy
>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>
>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only members
>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG members will
>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>
>> All the best, Katitza
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From william.drake at uzh.ch  Sun May 22 04:33:44 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 10:33:44 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimc=iveWfVEnvN7zAp47_rQ1+e8WA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTimc=iveWfVEnvN7zAp47_rQ1+e8WA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <71F0FE8F-CE1D-446B-A5E3-B040085DB185@uzh.ch>

McT,

On May 22, 2011, at 7:13 AM, McTim wrote:

> I would not be in favor of removal of transparency by creating a
> separate list.  This is not a war, where intelligence is crucial.  The
> other stakeholders know our perspective and what we want to achieve.
> In other words, I don't think we have any secrets we need to hide, do
> we?

I am all in favor of CS having more open and sustained dialogue with other nongovernmental stakeholders & coordination on common concerns.   But it does have to be acknowledged that the transparency here is and always has been all one way.  People from ISOC & ICC (as well as from governments and IOs) have long been on this list and fully aware of our discussions, internal dynamics, & strategies, but we have no parallel access to information from their sides.  Don't you think it's a bit difficult to build trust and collaborate when the burden of openness falls only on one party?  Personally, I can't think of many examples of successful cooperation built on such thorough informational asymmetries.

Any ideas on how to establish some measure of mutual openness and coordination in order to have a stronger, three-legged stool?

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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Sun May 22 05:48:54 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 06:48:54 -0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <4DD8C702.7090406@eff.org>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org>
	<4DD7EFE8.8090808@eff.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C019@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4DD8C702.7090406@eff.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikW-9qyDU8E_iH85mG_WBtUM0p-Yg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Wolfgang and all,

Anriette has been working on a statetement from CS supporting the
continuation of the CSTD WG. IGF improvements and WSIS review will be
discussed on Tuesday, so we should have news after that. CS is having an
informal dinner with representatives from the technical community and the
business sector on Monday night to chat about CSTD. I am really happy that
we will have the opportunity to do it.

So far, as long as we know, the only one to support extintion of the WG is
the United States. They sent a letter to CSTD saying that. You can access it
here:http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/ (on the right side)

The members of CSTD bureau will meet tomorrow morning, before the
conference, to talk about proposals of resolutions. Europe will be proposing
one resolution about IGF improvement, but we dont know its exact content. I
heard their goal is not to let discussions in WG go completely to waste.
Europe has been supportive, and they (Hungary) backed me up when I
complained about lack of executive coordinator and chair for the IGF
process, during WSIS tacking stocks session.

I will be in the meeting, but not exactly as CS representative, because my
organization does not have ECOSOC status. I will be there invited by the
Brazilian delegation, so I am not sure about my possibility to intervene.
But Anriette will be there as APC, Katitza will be observing as EFF and we
heard Parminder will be here as well, but not sure.

Best,
Marília

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

> Hi Wolfgang:
>
> I am not familiar with the UNCSTD meeting. Anriette and Marilia are our
> representative there.
>
> Katitza
>
>
> On 5/22/11 9:15 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
>> Thanks Katitza,
>>
>> any information about outcomes from the MAG meeting?  And who nis going to
>> monitor (or make a statement) in the forthcoming UNCSTD meeting?
>>
>> wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Katitza Rodriguez
>> Gesendet: Sa 21.05.2011 19:01
>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez
>> Betreff: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I want to let you know that civil society members in Geneva worked
>> extremely hard during the open consultation and the open MAG meeting.
>> Those identify with civil society were: APC Anriette Esterhuysen and Joy
>> Liddicoat, Marilia Maciel, Adam Peake, and Bill Drake. Please apologize
>> me if I forgot of anyone else.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Katitza
>>
>>
>> On 5/21/11 6:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>>> Dear IGC members (plus other stakeholders in this list):
>>>
>>> I want to inform civil society IGC members that only four civil
>>> society MAG members were able to attend the last Open Consultation and
>>> MAG meeting. The civil society MAG members were: Valeria Betancourt,
>>> Fouad Bawja, Graciela Selaimen, and myself.
>>>
>>> It is important to understand that four civil society MAG members are
>>> not enough to allow civil society to effectively monitor and shape
>>> "all" the main sessions for the next IGF. During the OC, we have
>>> requested the IGF Secretariat to provide us with a better
>>> understanding of the current list of civil society MAG members, and
>>> the need to fill out those civil society slots in the MAG so we can
>>> keep the balance between all stakeholders.
>>>
>>> In this MAG meeting, we were able to cover between 3-4 sessions. In
>>> the next days to come, we will be monitoring the other sessions (which
>>> will not be able to monitor in-situ) to make sure civil society voice
>>> is included. As a MAG member, my main concern is the SOP session. If
>>> you want to send me a "private message" about the issues that you
>>> consider should be discussed, please do so by sending an email to
>>> katitza at eff.org Our main input for discussion is the February Open
>>> Consultation where many of you (and other stakeholders) provided
>>> valuable comments, and we will work hard to ensure that those
>>> suggestions are included.
>>>
>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is open
>>> to other stakeholders including public authorities, government
>>> officials, technical community, and business sector representatives.
>>> Therefore, members need to understand that MAG members have a very
>>> difficult task to share strategies in a public list. Any public
>>> strategy that we can share here, can always harm our collective
>>> efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy in advance is a big
>>> problem and can harm our work.
>>>
>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only
>>> members that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG
>>> members will be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>
>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> International Rights Director
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> katitza at eff.org
>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>
>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of
>> speech since 1990
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> --
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of
> speech since 1990
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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/20110522/e2a197fc/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 katitza at eff.org  Sun May 22 07:20:59 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 13:20:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <71F0FE8F-CE1D-446B-A5E3-B040085DB185@uzh.ch>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTimc=iveWfVEnvN7zAp47_rQ1+e8WA@mail.gmail.com> <71F0FE8F-CE1D-446B-A5E3-B040085DB185@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <4DD8F19B.3070201@eff.org>


On 5/22/11 10:33 AM, William Drake wrote:
> I am all in favor of CS having more open and sustained dialogue with other nongovernmental stakeholders&  coordination on common concerns.
In addition to Bill's comments, it would be good add that many of us 
have on going conversations with other stakeholders in different venues 
including IGF, OECD, CoE, APEC, among others and with governments and 
public authorities. You can't find common grounds without such as dialogue.


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

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sun May 22 07:45:32 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 12:45:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] remote participation via standardized protocols
 (was Re: Open consultations)
In-Reply-To: <20110521154705.55F2915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <BANLkTikK-g01aZt3wCJ0peCDGosQz9rE-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110518121926.476A215C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <9l0mLABtT80NFA6X@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518140044.D333A15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <O1Lq$XGQV90NFAs7@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110518145755.A98BA15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <SiGdq8SlD$0NFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519075934.696A515C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <eAJ+SDgdgR1NFAFT@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519150245.E271B15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <7RTn2Fu0kT1NFAgM@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110519161725.4342615C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <pI1zQANuHi1NFASp@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20110521154705.55F2915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <gKqRgPwcdP2NFAbb@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <20110521154705.55F2915C0DF at quill.bollow.ch>, at 17:47:05 on 
Sat, 21 May 2011, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes

>Sigh. Roland, did you truly not understand that in this entire
>thread what I'm talking about is that in my opinion, there is
>not enough practical emphasis on standardization of protocols
>and data formats for communication via the internet (in the
>sense of formal development of suitable open standards and their
>adoption), and that this lack of emphasis is (of course together
>with other factors) causing practical problems?

Of course I realise that this is your opinion. I've worked with people 
who (for example) refuse to participate when MS-Word documents are 
circulated, on the grounds that it's a proprietary technology.

However, my opinion is that without the pragmatic use of the tools we 
*do* have (like Adobe Connect, let alone MS-Word) things would be even 
worse when trying to participate in the meetings which will carry on 
regardless of whether there's a suitable open standards remote 
participation solution, or whether there's someone in the audience who 
has opted out of reading MS-Word documents.

I'm the record encouraging the development of an open standards 
solution, but am realistic about the time and effort involved.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sun May 22 08:03:22 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 13:03:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org>
 <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <9q$W42yKuP2NFA6k@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4DD8CA1C.7040905 at wzb.eu>, at 10:32:28 on Sun, 22 May 2011, 
Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> writes
>My pragmatic suggestion would be to form informal and temporary 
>subgroups for issues that need non-public coordination.

I was under the impression that there was already three such lists 
(outreach, strategy and workplan).

>The membership in such subgroups would be hand-picked and thus 
>intransparent.

Hand-picked (if that's how it must be) is a possible model, but there's 
no reason for a lack of transparency for the criteria or the members.

>Since statements on behalf of the IGC would still need voting, I don't 
>see a problem with that.

I suspect that if a secret group came up with some ideas, that the main 
list would insist on re-debating them. And bringing things to the main 
list will defeat any element of surprise (if that was the purpose).
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sun May 22 08:17:01 2011
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 05:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
Message-ID: <695279.11167.qm@web161020.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Dear Izumi, 
I agree with you, however I could not understand that which type of strategies is being referred by Katiza which is hidden between members or coordinators.

Openness & transparency may not allow us to have any hidden agenda.

If we are asked to provide IGC Members list, its easy. If we are asked to indicate IGC+MAG members, I would suggest to indicate those IGC members who become MAG members after joining IGC, similarly those MAG members who also joined IGC. 

Thanks

Imran Ahmed Shah

On Sun, 22 May 2011 13:18 PKT Izumi AIZU wrote:

>As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the request
>or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only list.
>
>As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
>If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
>coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>
>I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new list and
>how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your reactions
>first on the current list.
>
>izumi
>
>
>>
>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is open to
>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government officials,
>> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore, members
>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to share
>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share here, can
>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy
>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>
>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only members
>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG members will
>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>
>> All the best, Katitza
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>                        >> Izumi Aizu <<
>          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                  Japan
>                                 * * * * *
>                              www.anr.org
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Sun May 22 08:29:07 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 08:29:07 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimc=iveWfVEnvN7zAp47_rQ1+e8WA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTimc=iveWfVEnvN7zAp47_rQ1+e8WA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0411F170-9805-40EF-A5FE-BF16FB83C09B@ella.com>

Hi,

I used to beleive that.

I am no longer so sure.

We maintain complete transparency.
They have none.

a.

On 22 May 2011, at 01:13, McTim wrote:

> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to share
>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share here, can
>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy
>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
> 
> It's not "us vs. them", rather in the collaborative Internet Model,
> it's "us + them".
> 
> I would not be in favor of removal of transparency by creating a
> separate list.  This is not a war, where intelligence is crucial.  The
> other stakeholders know our perspective and what we want to achieve.
> In other words, I don't think we have any secrets we need to hide, do
> we?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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


From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com  Sun May 22 08:33:47 2011
From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 08:33:47 -0400
Subject: [governance] Towards Singapore
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <C9FE888B.21086%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinfqNwizwEnUjV79iN9fVyEhvteMA@mail.gmail.com>

A brilliant article. full stop.

Thanks Wolfgang.

Rgds,

Tracy

2011/5/22 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

> FYI
>
> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/05/18/high-noon-in-singapore
>
> 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/20110522/908e84b2/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 ella.com  Sun May 22 09:08:45 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 09:08:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] Towards Singapore
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinfqNwizwEnUjV79iN9fVyEhvteMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C9FE888B.21086%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <BANLkTinfqNwizwEnUjV79iN9fVyEhvteMA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D9176A66-8605-45AB-80A6-75DBD063D370@ella.com>

Hi,

I find the suggestion of a 5.1 followed by a 5.2, 53. ...5.n  to be just another way to suggest further delay in another guise.  Yet Another Delay.
I would be yet another surrender to the governments' demands and would be yet another nail in ICANN coffin.

The governments' advice has been heard time and again.

And as for the story governments keep selling that nobody listened to them until now, I deny its validity.  They were invited to meetings all the way through the policy development process.  Progress was reported to them and their input was requested time and time again.  I know because I was the one begging them for timely participation.  It was just that they decided that they only would speak to the board.  Of course the decisions was yet in the Board's hands, so there was nothing to speak to the Board about.  The lesser beings working on the policy recommendations were not important enough for the GAC's consideration, so they waited until the end of the process to get involved.

Additionally the main impetus behind governments' current push are the Intellectual Property lobbies of the world.  And their intent has not changed since the early 90's - to stop new gTLDs from ever happening in any way they could.  They have succeed for nearly decade, lets not help them succeed further by coming up with new ways to delay the delay the decisions that came out of the multistakeholder process even further.

If the ICANN Board shies away from its decision yet again, the impetus will grow even further to shed the shackles of the ICANN process and just get moving with alternate arrangements.  Sooner or later that alternate root will get going.  The Russians and Chinese threatened several years ago to start separate root if they did not get their IDNs right away, and ICANN succumbed.  It is unfortunate that no social entrepreneur is standing in the wings nearly ready to spring out a well considered and operationally sound DNS replacement for what will only be seen as a moribund ICANN if Singapore ends up giving us Yet Another Delay.    I will certainly do whatever I can to help create a new root if ICANN fails yet again to release the new gTLDs promised to world in the 90's.

When I was on WGIG one of my complaints was that ICANN had not lived up to its promise on new gTLDs.  I was brought into ICANN after WGIG by its Nomcom to put my effort where my mouth was.  I have done so and am beginning to see that it may be futile.  Might just be time to start working on the next option, an option that cannot be controlled by the Intellectual Property lobby and governments.

a.

On 22 May 2011, at 08:33, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote:

> A brilliant article. full stop.
> 
> Thanks Wolfgang.
> 
> Rgds,
> 
> Tracy
> 
> 2011/5/22 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> FYI
> 
> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/05/18/high-noon-in-singapore
> 
> 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 katitza at eff.org  Sun May 22 09:29:42 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 15:29:42 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <695279.11167.qm@web161020.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <695279.11167.qm@web161020.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4DD90FC6.6040108@eff.org>

Hi Imran,

The issue here is not lack of transparency. Here is lack of information. 
We do not know a priori which will be the arguments of other 
stakeholders prior to the meeting while they do know most of all our 
concerns. All the best, Katitza

On 5/22/11 2:17 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:
> Dear Izumi,
> I agree with you, however I could not understand that which type of strategies is being referred by Katiza which is hidden between members or coordinators.
>
> Openness&  transparency may not allow us to have any hidden agenda.
>
> If we are asked to provide IGC Members list, its easy. If we are asked to indicate IGC+MAG members, I would suggest to indicate those IGC members who become MAG members after joining IGC, similarly those MAG members who also joined IGC.
>
> Thanks
>
> Imran Ahmed Shah
>
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 13:18 PKT Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
>> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the request
>> or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only list.
>>
>> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
>> If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
>> coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>>
>> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new list and
>> how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your reactions
>> first on the current list.
>>
>> izumi
>>
>>
>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is open to
>>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government officials,
>>> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore, members
>>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to share
>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share here, can
>>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy
>>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>>
>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only members
>>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG members will
>>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>
>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>                          >>  Izumi Aizu<<
>>            Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>>             Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>>                                    Japan
>>                                   * * * * *
>>                                www.anr.org
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Sun May 22 09:37:50 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 09:37:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD90FC6.6040108@eff.org>
References: <695279.11167.qm@web161020.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4DD90FC6.6040108@eff.org>
Message-ID: <2BB67D1B-B855-442D-84F7-4EB77BF41B7A@ella.com>

Hi,

And if we could beleive PS/ITC would be supportive of Civil Society and our positions that might not be so bad.  But since there seems to be a mood in PS/ITC to coalesce with Governments and not with Civil Society, that is not good for civil society.  For example at eG8, PS/ITC got their seats at the table, ergo time to throw CS under the bus.

a.

On 22 May 2011, at 09:29, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

> Hi Imran,
> 
> The issue here is not lack of transparency. Here is lack of information. We do not know a priori which will be the arguments of other stakeholders prior to the meeting while they do know most of all our concerns. All the best, Katitza
> 
> On 5/22/11 2:17 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:
>> Dear Izumi,
>> I agree with you, however I could not understand that which type of strategies is being referred by Katiza which is hidden between members or coordinators.
>> 
>> Openness&  transparency may not allow us to have any hidden agenda.
>> 
>> If we are asked to provide IGC Members list, its easy. If we are asked to indicate IGC+MAG members, I would suggest to indicate those IGC members who become MAG members after joining IGC, similarly those MAG members who also joined IGC.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>> 
>> On Sun, 22 May 2011 13:18 PKT Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> 
>>> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the request
>>> or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only list.
>>> 
>>> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
>>> If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
>>> coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>>> 
>>> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new list and
>>> how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your reactions
>>> first on the current list.
>>> 
>>> izumi
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is open to
>>>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government officials,
>>>> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore, members
>>>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to share
>>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share here, can
>>>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy
>>>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>>> 
>>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only members
>>>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG members will
>>>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>> 
>>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>>                         >>  Izumi Aizu<<
>>>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>>>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>>>                                   Japan
>>>                                  * * * * *
>>>                               www.anr.org
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
> 
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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


From william.drake at uzh.ch  Sun May 22 09:41:59 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 15:41:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] Towards Singapore
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <C9FE888B.21086%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <1F9A92B2-756F-45BF-B49D-E6105D211925@uzh.ch>

Hi Wolfgang

On May 22, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> FYI
> 
> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/05/18/high-noon-in-singapore

Thanks for the pointer, a nice read.  And I enjoyed the blissful pic of you, looks like an ad for some good earphones :-)

I was going to ask something on his site, but since Kieren requires everything but a blood sample to register and respond to blog posts, I'll do it here.  Re: your suggestion,

<If consensus cannot be reached quickly on the scorecard issues, one approach could be to cut the package into two parts and move forward at different speeds on two levels.  The final version of the “Draft Applicant Guidebook” (DAG) could be adopted “in principle” while at the same time the five to seven remaining paragraphs, where the devil feeds the fire, could be put temporarily into so-called “brackets”.  ICANN would not move from, DAG 5.0 to DAG 6.0 but to DAG 5.1. Based on such a basic agreement one could do two things at once: start the process with all those strings which are not touched by the devil’s paragraphs and do not have the potential to create any type of controversy (this could be a group of about 50+ new gTLDs) and move forward with this 1st basket of uncontroversial applications in Singapore and, at the same time, continue negotiations among the involved parties to remove the brackets from the devils paragraphs as quick as possible, hopefully until the 42nd meeting in Dakar, October 2011 which would than open the door for applications which would go into a 2nd basket.>

I have to wonder whether this is necessarily a good idea from a negotiation standpoint.  Separating out the "devil’s paragraphs" would alter the incentives structures and could complicate the search for compromises on those issues.  Inter alia, there'd be no scope for leveraging tactical issue-linkages or using the prospect of being responsible for sinking the whole deal to incent reluctant parties to gulp hard and say ok.  This is part of why the WTO always does its huge multi-issue trade rounds as "single undertakings" in which all regime elements and national schedules must be finalized by the same deadline (although there are some specific factors making that increasingly problematic in trade).  One also wonders about the consequences, including from FoE and competitive standpoints, of categorizing some gTLDs as noncontroversial and therefore privileged to go first while others that offend some government's or trademark holder's tender sensibilities languish waiting for a successful resolution that very might not happen by Dakar, or beyond.

Bottom line, there can be pluses and minuses to decomposing a complex deal in order to urgently reach agreement on a subset of issues.  These might merit some assessment and weighing...

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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sun May 22 11:13:49 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 20:43:49 +0530
Subject: [governance] Petition on G8
In-Reply-To: <C9FE888B.21086%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <C9FE888B.21086%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <4DD9282D.2040409@itforchange.net>

The set of proposals made by Divina requires serious consideration of 
the group.

As we speak of IGF 2.0, maybe it is time that we need to look at IGC 2.0 
as well.

Especially important to understand that 'multistkaeholderism' by itself 
is not a strong enough agenda for us. In order to be taken seriously we 
need to know and present what are we substantially aiming for.

I can understand why Le Monde did not find much substance in our letter. 
However, if may have bene different if we were clear and precise on 
pointing out the inconsistency in the stand of G 8 countries (something 
which will play out again next week at the CSTD meeting) when they list 
global Internet policy issues on G 8 agenda, but shy away from 
discussing the same issues at forums where all countries are present. 
And then we needed to further point out why such global democracy in 
deciding Internet policies is important, and what it means for the 
future of the Internet. This would also have helped us get support of 
other global civil society group which have similar problems with G 8's 
high handed approach to other global issues.

Can I propose that coordinators take Divina's proposals up for a serious 
discussion on this list.

The proposal by Katitza to have an *additional* IGC members only list - 
where only some very few issue may ever get taken, and every time with 
clear justification for doing so - should be addressed within such a 
larger IGC reform agenda.

Parminder

On Sunday 22 May 2011 01:01 PM, Divina MEIGS wrote:
> Hi
> I would like to concur with Wolfgang in the light of my experience at trying
> to publicize our statement in the French press, and among leaders and
> like-minded NGOs.
>
> The response of the journalists at Le Monde gave me food for thought: they
> considered that our statement was not enough "punchy" and that there was no
> indication of strategy or of action to take. Basically I got the feeling
> from other respondents that we were too soft and that claiming only for
> multi-stakeholderism didn't suffice to bring attention to the claims of CS.
>
> We are at a disadvantage with NGOs like the ligue des droits de l'homme for
> instance, because they can integrate internet governance in their agenda
> with relative ease, and with precise arguments and strategies. Long-standing
> NGOs, if properly sensitized, can thus be very powerful in pushing our
> issues, though they may not have the acuteness of our entry perspective.
>
> If we want to influence the process more, we may want a two-pronged
> strategy:
>      -influence more the agenda of long-standing constituencies (users,
> consumers, researchers) by providing them a rationale for internet
> governance (not only multistakeholderism)
>      -transform our own agenda, with less emphasis on multi-stakeholderism
> now that it is more or less recognized (if not implemented) in fora like
> OCDE, to focus more on key issues
>
> In both cases, we need to be more incisive among ourselves about what we
> want to achieve, what we want to press as a priority and with what other
> partners in the world out there. I would plead as this point for a 10 point
> "internet governance charter", as a defining tool for pushing strategy and
> policy from our perspective in various fora, whether they are policy-shaping
> like IGF or policy-making like G8/G20 or OCDE... (i'm not set on 10, by the
> way :-))
>
> Best
> Divina
>
>
> Le 20/05/11 15:55, « Kleinwächter, Wolfgang »
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>  a écrit :
>
>> I fully support the "side-event approach" for the case we are not invited.
>> The proposed Press Release is a good idea. BTW, the multistakeholder concept
>> gets also full support by the draft OECD principles and th Whitehouse
>> Statement  on the US International Strategy for Cyberspace.  However there is
>> still a lot to do, also in clarifying what "CS" is and what the role of the
>> stakeholders is if we want to move from lip service to sustainable, inclusive
>> and transparent actions.
>>
>> wolfgang
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Constance Bommelaer
>> Gesendet: Fr 20.05.2011 15:10
>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Divina MEIGS'
>> Betreff: RE: [governance] Petition on G8
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Divina.
>>
>> In future G8 and G20 forums, it would be nice to hold a side event or simply
>> participate to a session at the Avignon Forum (side-event to the G20) where
>> all stakeholders would be invited to participate: civil society, business
>> and the Internet technical community.
>>
>> On another note, ISOC, ISOC France, the W3C, the NRO and ICANN are preparing
>> a common press release for the upcoming eG8 (24-25 May), emphasizing the
>> WSIS heritage and the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Constance Bommelaer
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
>> Of Divina MEIGS
>> Sent: vendredi 20 mai 2011 14:59
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Cc: bommelaer at isoc.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Petition on G8
>>
>> Dear all
>> A quick follow-up on our open letter to president Sarkozy:
>>      -it was sent to and acknowledged by the person close to the president in
>> charge of organizing the event
>>      -it was sent to and acknowldedged by the person at the Foreign affairs
>> ministry that follows internet governance issues
>>      -it was sent to Agence France Presse
>>      -it has receveid support by Ligue des droits de l'homme
>>      -Le Monde didn't publish it in its "debate" columns though it did
>> consider it  and it is going to report on the e-G8
>>      -it will be debated in two news-programmes on France Culture: "Un jour
>> sur la toile" (next weekend) and "enjeux internationaux" (30 may)
>>
>> Please note the proposed action of the French "Quadrature du net" at this
>> address:
>>
>> http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eg8-forum-a-smokescreen-for-governmental-cont
>> rol-of-the-net
>>
>> There is this idea, rapidly discussed with Constance Bommelaer from ISOC, to
>> do a civil society/technical community event prior to G20 in Cannes ...
>>
>> Please let us exchange, if you have other contacts or other news of
>> activities
>>
>> Best
>> divina
>>
>> Le 20/05/11 05:58, « Jeremy Malcolm »<jeremy at ciroap.org>  a écrit :
>>
>>> On 19/05/2011, at 10:37 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>
>>>> People may be interested to add their names to this petition
>>>>
>>>> https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/g8-protect-the-net
>>> Their letter is a fork of ours (and references us).
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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/20110522/990dc143/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  Sun May 22 11:17:04 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 20:47:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com> <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4DD928F0.90008@itforchange.net>



On Sunday 22 May 2011 02:02 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we've had this discussion about different lists countless times 
> before. Fortunately, I think, there was never a majority for those who 
> argued in favor of differentiating between IGF as an open 
> multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society advocacy 
> organization. 
Jeanette,

I did not understand what would you mean by non-differentiating between 
"IGF as an open multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society 
advocacy organization". Are the two not very different kinds of 
institutions?

And our charter clearly poses IGC as a civil society advocate 
organisation. That is what we are supposed to be, if we are not very 
ably that at the moment.

parminder

> It seems unlikely that a new discussion would lead to different 
> results. Therefore, if possible, lets not indulge in this issue again.
>
> My pragmatic suggestion would be to form informal and temporary 
> subgroups for issues that need non-public coordination. The membership 
> in such subgroups would be hand-picked and thus intransparent. Since 
> statements on behalf of the IGC would still need voting, I don't see a 
> problem with that.
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
> On 22.05.2011 10:18, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the 
>> request
>> or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only 
>> list.
>>
>> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
>> If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
>> coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>>
>> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new 
>> list and
>> how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your reactions
>> first on the current list.
>>
>> izumi
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is 
>>> open to
>>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government officials,
>>> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore, 
>>> members
>>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to share
>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share 
>>> here, can
>>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your 
>>> strategy
>>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>>
>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only 
>>> members
>>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG 
>>> members will
>>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>
>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110522/6d6bb761/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 katitza at eff.org  Sun May 22 11:39:39 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 17:39:39 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikW-9qyDU8E_iH85mG_WBtUM0p-Yg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org>	<4DD7EFE8.8090808@eff.org>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C019@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<4DD8C702.7090406@eff.org> <BANLkTikW-9qyDU8E_iH85mG_WBtUM0p-Yg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DD92E3B.4040305@eff.org>

Thanks Marilia for the update. :)

I would like to  acknowledge and thanks APC for their proactive role to 
organize this chat.

All the best, Katitza

On 5/22/11 11:48 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> CS is having an informal dinner with representatives from the 
> technical community and the business sector on Monday night to chat 
> about CSTD. I am really happy that we will have the opportunity to do it.

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

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

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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sun May 22 11:49:14 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 17:49:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD928F0.90008@itforchange.net>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com> <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu> <4DD928F0.90008@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4DD9307A.6050206@wzb.eu>



On 22.05.2011 17:17, parminder wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday 22 May 2011 02:02 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> we've had this discussion about different lists countless times
>> before. Fortunately, I think, there was never a majority for those who
>> argued in favor of differentiating between IGF as an open
>> multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society advocacy
>> organization.
> Jeanette,
>
> I did not understand what would you mean by non-differentiating between
> "IGF as an open multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society
> advocacy organization". Are the two not very different kinds of
> institutions?

They share one mailing list and I would advise against changing that.

jeanette
>
> And our charter clearly poses IGC as a civil society advocate
> organisation. That is what we are supposed to be, if we are not very
> ably that at the moment.
>
> parminder
>
>> It seems unlikely that a new discussion would lead to different
>> results. Therefore, if possible, lets not indulge in this issue again.
>>
>> My pragmatic suggestion would be to form informal and temporary
>> subgroups for issues that need non-public coordination. The membership
>> in such subgroups would be hand-picked and thus intransparent. Since
>> statements on behalf of the IGC would still need voting, I don't see a
>> problem with that.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22.05.2011 10:18, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the
>>> request
>>> or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only
>>> list.
>>>
>>> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
>>> If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
>>> coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>>>
>>> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new
>>> list and
>>> how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your reactions
>>> first on the current list.
>>>
>>> izumi
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is
>>>> open to
>>>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government officials,
>>>> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore,
>>>> members
>>>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to share
>>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share
>>>> here, can
>>>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your
>>>> strategy
>>>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only
>>>> members
>>>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG
>>>> members will
>>>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>>
>>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Sun May 22 11:52:47 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 17:52:47 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD9307A.6050206@wzb.eu>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com> <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu> <4DD928F0.90008@itforchange.net> <4DD9307A.6050206@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4DD9314F.9060409@eff.org>

Can you elaborate your arguments, please?

On 5/22/11 5:49 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>
> On 22.05.2011 17:17, parminder wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sunday 22 May 2011 02:02 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> we've had this discussion about different lists countless times
>>> before. Fortunately, I think, there was never a majority for those who
>>> argued in favor of differentiating between IGF as an open
>>> multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society advocacy
>>> organization.
>> Jeanette,
>>
>> I did not understand what would you mean by non-differentiating between
>> "IGF as an open multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society
>> advocacy organization". Are the two not very different kinds of
>> institutions?
>
> They share one mailing list and I would advise against changing that.
>
> jeanette
>>
>> And our charter clearly poses IGC as a civil society advocate
>> organisation. That is what we are supposed to be, if we are not very
>> ably that at the moment.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>> It seems unlikely that a new discussion would lead to different
>>> results. Therefore, if possible, lets not indulge in this issue again.
>>>
>>> My pragmatic suggestion would be to form informal and temporary
>>> subgroups for issues that need non-public coordination. The membership
>>> in such subgroups would be hand-picked and thus intransparent. Since
>>> statements on behalf of the IGC would still need voting, I don't see a
>>> problem with that.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22.05.2011 10:18, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the
>>>> request
>>>> or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only
>>>> list.
>>>>
>>>> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
>>>> If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
>>>> coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>>>>
>>>> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new
>>>> list and
>>>> how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your 
>>>> reactions
>>>> first on the current list.
>>>>
>>>> izumi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is
>>>>> open to
>>>>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government 
>>>>> officials,
>>>>> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore,
>>>>> members
>>>>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to 
>>>>> share
>>>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share
>>>>> here, can
>>>>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your
>>>>> strategy
>>>>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only
>>>>> members
>>>>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG
>>>>> members will
>>>>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sun May 22 12:00:58 2011
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 09:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
Message-ID: <176078.41860.qm@web161008.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Thanks for quick response, 
That's true. 

This is because they are only Multi Stake Holder's Group who is inside IGF.

System does not provide them guidelines/mendate to share their activity or strategy among those who are out of their closed circle.
Even their meetings are closed.

Individually, they have good gentleman personalities and representations but 
Lacking of information sharing is a fault of the structure of the system of forum.

For example, when IGC member's statement is prepared, all the members of the mailing list (which is open to public) can give their arguments and know the every point. And finally when the statement is signed through a common survey, it is up loaded for the public (general user of the internet).
Do they have any such mechanism?  

I would suggest that IGC should write a letter to Secretary General UN.

Regards

Imran Ahmed Shah

On Sun, 22 May 2011 18:29 PKT Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

>Hi Imran,
>
>The issue here is not lack of transparency. Here is lack of information. 
>We do not know a priori which will be the arguments of other 
>stakeholders prior to the meeting while they do know most of all our 
>concerns. All the best, Katitza
>
>On 5/22/11 2:17 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:
>> Dear Izumi,
>> I agree with you, however I could not understand that which type of strategies is being referred by Katiza which is hidden between members or coordinators.
>>
>> Openness&  transparency may not allow us to have any hidden agenda.
>>
>> If we are asked to provide IGC Members list, its easy. If we are asked to indicate IGC+MAG members, I would suggest to indicate those IGC members who become MAG members after joining IGC, similarly those MAG members who also joined IGC.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>>
>> On Sun, 22 May 2011 13:18 PKT Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>
>>> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the request
>>> or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only list.
>>>
>>> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
>>> If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
>>> coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>>>
>>> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new list and
>>> how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your reactions
>>> first on the current list.
>>>
>>> izumi
>>>
>>>
>>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is open to
>>>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government officials,
>>>> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore, members
>>>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to share
>>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share here, can
>>>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy
>>>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only members
>>>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG members will
>>>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>>
>>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>                          >>  Izumi Aizu<<
>>>            Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>>>             Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>>>                                    Japan
>>>                                   * * * * *
>>>                                www.anr.org
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>
>
>-- 
>Katitza Rodriguez
>International Rights Director
>Electronic Frontier Foundation
>katitza at eff.org
>katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
>Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Sun May 22 12:11:11 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 18:11:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <176078.41860.qm@web161008.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <176078.41860.qm@web161008.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4DD9359F.7080707@eff.org>

The U.N should not get involved on how we decided to organize ourselves. 
This should be solely our decision.

Business sector, government entities, International organizations and 
technical community, each of them have their own "internal" decision 
making processes to comply with their own transparency rules, consensus 
positions, etc.

According to Jeannette, this list is not only a IGC list but has a 
second objective.. .. this is what I am trying to understand now.

All the best, Katitza

On 5/22/11 6:00 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:
> Thanks for quick response,
> That's true.
>
> This is because they are only Multi Stake Holder's Group who is inside IGF.
>
> System does not provide them guidelines/mendate to share their activity or strategy among those who are out of their closed circle.
> Even their meetings are closed.
>
> Individually, they have good gentleman personalities and representations but
> Lacking of information sharing is a fault of the structure of the system of forum.
>
> For example, when IGC member's statement is prepared, all the members of the mailing list (which is open to public) can give their arguments and know the every point. And finally when the statement is signed through a common survey, it is up loaded for the public (general user of the internet).
> Do they have any such mechanism?
>
> I would suggest that IGC should write a letter to Secretary General UN.
>
> Regards
>
> Imran Ahmed Shah
>
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 18:29 PKT Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> Hi Imran,
>>
>> The issue here is not lack of transparency. Here is lack of information.
>> We do not know a priori which will be the arguments of other
>> stakeholders prior to the meeting while they do know most of all our
>> concerns. All the best, Katitza
>>
>> On 5/22/11 2:17 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:
>>> Dear Izumi,
>>> I agree with you, however I could not understand that which type of strategies is being referred by Katiza which is hidden between members or coordinators.
>>>
>>> Openness&   transparency may not allow us to have any hidden agenda.
>>>
>>> If we are asked to provide IGC Members list, its easy. If we are asked to indicate IGC+MAG members, I would suggest to indicate those IGC members who become MAG members after joining IGC, similarly those MAG members who also joined IGC.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>>>
>>> On Sun, 22 May 2011 13:18 PKT Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>
>>>> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the request
>>>> or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only list.
>>>>
>>>> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
>>>> If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
>>>> coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>>>>
>>>> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new list and
>>>> how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your reactions
>>>> first on the current list.
>>>>
>>>> izumi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is open to
>>>>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government officials,
>>>>> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore, members
>>>>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to share
>>>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share here, can
>>>>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy
>>>>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only members
>>>>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG members will
>>>>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>                           >>   Izumi Aizu<<
>>>>             Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>>>>              Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>>>>                                     Japan
>>>>                                    * * * * *
>>>>                                 www.anr.org
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> International Rights Director
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> katitza at eff.org
>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>
>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun May 22 12:21:58 2011
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 11:21:58 -0500
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <176078.41860.qm@web161008.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <176078.41860.qm@web161008.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4DD93826.2060105@paque.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110522/b5fe13ff/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  Sun May 22 12:25:55 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 19:25:55 +0300
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD8C774.8040703@eff.org>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTimc=iveWfVEnvN7zAp47_rQ1+e8WA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4DD8C774.8040703@eff.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikxEN335QCtRXwe8inyxMZ5fhNvBQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
> It would be ok if I also here their opinion  in this list. Many of your
> opinion harm us while we are there.

Which opinions of mine harm "us"?  While we are where?


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sun May 22 12:55:11 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 18:55:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD9314F.9060409@eff.org>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com> <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu> <4DD928F0.90008@itforchange.net> <4DD9307A.6050206@wzb.eu> <4DD9314F.9060409@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DD93FEF.9000704@wzb.eu>



On 22.05.2011 17:52, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Can you elaborate your arguments, please?

I don't want to encourage what I argued against to begin with, another 
discussion about splitting the mailing list.

This mailing list has proven to be flexible enough to fulfill several 
functions, providing an open platform to discuss IG issues across single 
stakeholder groups and simultaneously providing the space to develop 
collective statements. It is actually amazing that this mailing list 
with its highly diverse list of subscribers has managed to survive for 
so many years without losing significant shares of subscribers (which 
doesn't say much about its actual readers though).

A splitting of the list risks destroying this space without any clear 
benefit. We don't have that many secrets to hide from other stakeholder 
groups (at least that I would know of) that seem worth taking such a 
chance. If there is a need for strategizing, small groups can always 
form offlist, and have often formed for that matter.

This mailing list is now 8 or 9 years old. It survived the end of WSIS 
and it might even survive the demise of the IGF. Its asset is its 
openness and its subscriber list. It would be sad if we destroyed it in 
the name of narrow understanding of civil society.

jeanette


>
> On 5/22/11 5:49 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22.05.2011 17:17, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday 22 May 2011 02:02 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> we've had this discussion about different lists countless times
>>>> before. Fortunately, I think, there was never a majority for those who
>>>> argued in favor of differentiating between IGF as an open
>>>> multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society advocacy
>>>> organization.
>>> Jeanette,
>>>
>>> I did not understand what would you mean by non-differentiating between
>>> "IGF as an open multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society
>>> advocacy organization". Are the two not very different kinds of
>>> institutions?
>>
>> They share one mailing list and I would advise against changing that.
>>
>> jeanette
>>>
>>> And our charter clearly poses IGC as a civil society advocate
>>> organisation. That is what we are supposed to be, if we are not very
>>> ably that at the moment.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>> It seems unlikely that a new discussion would lead to different
>>>> results. Therefore, if possible, lets not indulge in this issue again.
>>>>
>>>> My pragmatic suggestion would be to form informal and temporary
>>>> subgroups for issues that need non-public coordination. The membership
>>>> in such subgroups would be hand-picked and thus intransparent. Since
>>>> statements on behalf of the IGC would still need voting, I don't see a
>>>> problem with that.
>>>>
>>>> jeanette
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 22.05.2011 10:18, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>>> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the
>>>>> request
>>>>> or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only
>>>>> list.
>>>>>
>>>>> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
>>>>> If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
>>>>> coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>>>>>
>>>>> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new
>>>>> list and
>>>>> how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your
>>>>> reactions
>>>>> first on the current list.
>>>>>
>>>>> izumi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is
>>>>>> open to
>>>>>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government
>>>>>> officials,
>>>>>> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore,
>>>>>> members
>>>>>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to
>>>>>> share
>>>>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share
>>>>>> here, can
>>>>>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your
>>>>>> strategy
>>>>>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only
>>>>>> members
>>>>>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG
>>>>>> members will
>>>>>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Sun May 22 19:10:12 2011
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 19:10:12 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikW-9qyDU8E_iH85mG_WBtUM0p-Yg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org>	<4DD7EFE8.8090808@eff.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C019@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4DD8C702.7090406@eff.org>
 <BANLkTikW-9qyDU8E_iH85mG_WBtUM0p-Yg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06200768c9ff46c15cc2@[10.0.1.6]>

Marilia and Anriette,

I am on the latest version of the Tuesday 
afternoon session also, and i've just arrived in 
Geneva.  I am staying at the Hotel Cornavin.

May I join the group for dinner Monday evening? 
If so, just let me know when and where you will 
be meeting.

I probably will be at WHO and/or UNCTAD tomorrow, but at CSTD Tuesday.

Regards,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 6:48 AM -0300 5/22/11, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>Hello Wolfgang and all,
>
>Anriette has been working on a statetement from 
>CS supporting the continuation of the CSTD WG. 
>IGF improvements and WSIS review will be 
>discussed on Tuesday, so we should have news 
>after that. CS is having an informal dinner with 
>representatives from the technical community and 
>the business sector on Monday night to chat 
>about CSTD. I am really happy that we will have 
>the opportunity to do it.
>
>So far, as long as we know, the only one to 
>support extintion of the WG is the United 
>States. They sent a letter to CSTD saying that. 
>You can access it 
>here:<http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/>http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/ 
>(on the right side)
>
>The members of CSTD bureau will meet tomorrow 
>morning, before the conference, to talk about 
>proposals of resolutions. Europe will be 
>proposing one resolution about IGF improvement, 
>but we dont know its exact content. I heard 
>their goal is not to let discussions in WG go 
>completely to waste. Europe has been supportive, 
>and they (Hungary) backed me up when I 
>complained about lack of executive coordinator 
>and chair for the IGF process, during WSIS 
>tacking stocks session.
>
>I will be in the meeting, but not exactly as CS 
>representative, because my organization does not 
>have ECOSOC status. I will be there invited by 
>the Brazilian delegation, so I am not sure about 
>my possibility to intervene. But Anriette will 
>be there as APC, Katitza will be observing as 
>EFF and we heard Parminder will be here as well, 
>but not sure.
>
>Best,
>Marília
>
>On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Katitza 
>Rodriguez 
><<mailto:katitza at eff.org>katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>
>Hi Wolfgang:
>
>I am not familiar with the UNCSTD meeting. 
>Anriette and Marilia are our representative 
>there.
>
>Katitza

<<trimmed>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110522/1df1cec2/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 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu  Sun May 22 13:13:11 2011
From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 19:13:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD93FEF.9000704@wzb.eu>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com> <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu> <4DD928F0.90008@itforchange.net> <4DD9307A.6050206@wzb.eu> <4DD9314F.9060409@eff.org> <4DD93FEF.9000704@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <7116D8A9-96A9-46F8-B4BA-800EF72CBD8D@christopherwilkinson.eu>

+1 supporting JH.

In any event, the discussion on IGC and IGF issues is in practice  
conducted by a small number of committed and informed people.
It is beneficial that their and our discussion be conducted in public  
in a single forum.

CW




On 22 May 2011, at 18:55, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

>
>
> On 22.05.2011 17:52, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>> Can you elaborate your arguments, please?
>
> I don't want to encourage what I argued against to begin with,  
> another discussion about splitting the mailing list.
>
> This mailing list has proven to be flexible enough to fulfill  
> several functions, providing an open platform to discuss IG issues  
> across single stakeholder groups and simultaneously providing the  
> space to develop collective statements. It is actually amazing that  
> this mailing list with its highly diverse list of subscribers has  
> managed to survive for so many years without losing significant  
> shares of subscribers (which doesn't say much about its actual  
> readers though).
>
> A splitting of the list risks destroying this space without any  
> clear benefit. We don't have that many secrets to hide from other  
> stakeholder groups (at least that I would know of) that seem worth  
> taking such a chance. If there is a need for strategizing, small  
> groups can always form offlist, and have often formed for that matter.
>
> This mailing list is now 8 or 9 years old. It survived the end of  
> WSIS and it might even survive the demise of the IGF. Its asset is  
> its openness and its subscriber list. It would be sad if we  
> destroyed it in the name of narrow understanding of civil society.
>
> jeanette
>
>
>>
>> On 5/22/11 5:49 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22.05.2011 17:17, parminder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday 22 May 2011 02:02 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> we've had this discussion about different lists countless times
>>>>> before. Fortunately, I think, there was never a majority for  
>>>>> those who
>>>>> argued in favor of differentiating between IGF as an open
>>>>> multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society advocacy
>>>>> organization.
>>>> Jeanette,
>>>>
>>>> I did not understand what would you mean by non-differentiating  
>>>> between
>>>> "IGF as an open multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil  
>>>> society
>>>> advocacy organization". Are the two not very different kinds of
>>>> institutions?
>>>
>>> They share one mailing list and I would advise against changing  
>>> that.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>>
>>>> And our charter clearly poses IGC as a civil society advocate
>>>> organisation. That is what we are supposed to be, if we are not  
>>>> very
>>>> ably that at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>> It seems unlikely that a new discussion would lead to different
>>>>> results. Therefore, if possible, lets not indulge in this issue  
>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>> My pragmatic suggestion would be to form informal and temporary
>>>>> subgroups for issues that need non-public coordination. The  
>>>>> membership
>>>>> in such subgroups would be hand-picked and thus intransparent.  
>>>>> Since
>>>>> statements on behalf of the IGC would still need voting, I don't  
>>>>> see a
>>>>> problem with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22.05.2011 10:18, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>>>> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly  
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>> request
>>>>>> or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new,  
>>>>>> CS-only
>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
>>>>>> If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will  
>>>>>> be the
>>>>>> coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this  
>>>>>> new
>>>>>> list and
>>>>>> how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your
>>>>>> reactions
>>>>>> first on the current list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> izumi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list  
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> open to
>>>>>>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government
>>>>>>> officials,
>>>>>>> technical community, and business sector representatives.  
>>>>>>> Therefore,
>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task  
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> share
>>>>>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can  
>>>>>>> share
>>>>>>> here, can
>>>>>>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing  
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> strategy
>>>>>>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC- 
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG
>>>>>>> members will
>>>>>>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>   governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Sun May 22 13:31:14 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 19:31:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikxEN335QCtRXwe8inyxMZ5fhNvBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTimc=iveWfVEnvN7zAp47_rQ1+e8WA@mail.gmail.com> <4DD8C774.8040703@eff.org> <BANLkTikxEN335QCtRXwe8inyxMZ5fhNvBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DD94862.1040504@eff.org>

It is not *your* message. It is *our* message as civil society members 
of IGC sharing *our* thoughts in advance of a meeting. Comments that can 
be read by *other* stakeholders groups, who does not necessarily share 
*their* views with us in advance of a meeting. People can prepare their 
argument in order to dismiss our work. I do not have anything else to 
add. If  members do not believe this is a problem/and issue/something to 
think about, it is up to them to decide. -- >

I have a major concern: If we do not demonstrated that we are capable to 
organize our self, then we might have problems in the future -- may be 
with the UN trying to decide how civil society should organize itself. 
-- The latest, it is not something I would like to see discussed at a 
gov. level.

Katitza
On 5/22/11 6:25 PM, McTim wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Katitza Rodriguez<katitza at eff.org>  wrote:
>> It would be ok if I also here their opinion  in this list. Many of your
>> opinion harm us while we are there.
> Which opinions of mine harm "us"?  While we are where?
>
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sun May 22 13:31:34 2011
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 10:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
Message-ID: <803988.56901.qm@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Yes, 
Instead of splitting or developing differentiation between IGC CS mailing list members, to hode any information to share, we should understand the value of combine (single) mailing list.
We should remain open to share information.
If there is a problem of competitive intelligence, some of us may become members of other international institutions, but yes, CS members can't join Governmental institutions, so, let them do their work on their own way. If any of them join us for competitive intelligence, will learn good governance and examples from us (IGC CS).

On Sun, 22 May 2011 21:55 PKT Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

>
>
>On 22.05.2011 17:52, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>> Can you elaborate your arguments, please?
>
>I don't want to encourage what I argued against to begin with, another 
>discussion about splitting the mailing list.
>
>This mailing list has proven to be flexible enough to fulfill several 
>functions, providing an open platform to discuss IG issues across single 
>stakeholder groups and simultaneously providing the space to develop 
>collective statements. It is actually amazing that this mailing list 
>with its highly diverse list of subscribers has managed to survive for 
>so many years without losing significant shares of subscribers (which 
>doesn't say much about its actual readers though).
>
>A splitting of the list risks destroying this space without any clear 
>benefit. We don't have that many secrets to hide from other stakeholder 
>groups (at least that I would know of) that seem worth taking such a 
>chance. If there is a need for strategizing, small groups can always 
>form offlist, and have often formed for that matter.
>
>This mailing list is now 8 or 9 years old. It survived the end of WSIS 
>and it might even survive the demise of the IGF. Its asset is its 
>openness and its subscriber list. It would be sad if we destroyed it in 
>the name of narrow understanding of civil society.
>
>jeanette
>
>
>>
>> On 5/22/11 5:49 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22.05.2011 17:17, parminder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday 22 May 2011 02:02 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> we've had this discussion about different lists countless times
>>>>> before. Fortunately, I think, there was never a majority for those who
>>>>> argued in favor of differentiating between IGF as an open
>>>>> multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society advocacy
>>>>> organization.
>>>> Jeanette,
>>>>
>>>> I did not understand what would you mean by non-differentiating between
>>>> "IGF as an open multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society
>>>> advocacy organization". Are the two not very different kinds of
>>>> institutions?
>>>
>>> They share one mailing list and I would advise against changing that.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>>
>>>> And our charter clearly poses IGC as a civil society advocate
>>>> organisation. That is what we are supposed to be, if we are not very
>>>> ably that at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>> It seems unlikely that a new discussion would lead to different
>>>>> results. Therefore, if possible, lets not indulge in this issue again.
>>>>>
>>>>> My pragmatic suggestion would be to form informal and temporary
>>>>> subgroups for issues that need non-public coordination. The membership
>>>>> in such subgroups would be hand-picked and thus intransparent. Since
>>>>> statements on behalf of the IGC would still need voting, I don't see a
>>>>> problem with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22.05.2011 10:18, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>>>> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the
>>>>>> request
>>>>>> or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only
>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
>>>>>> If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
>>>>>> coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new
>>>>>> list and
>>>>>> how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your
>>>>>> reactions
>>>>>> first on the current list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> izumi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is
>>>>>>> open to
>>>>>>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government
>>>>>>> officials,
>>>>>>> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore,
>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to
>>>>>>> share
>>>>>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share
>>>>>>> here, can
>>>>>>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your
>>>>>>> strategy
>>>>>>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only
>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG
>>>>>>> members will
>>>>>>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Sun May 22 13:38:16 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 13:38:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <7116D8A9-96A9-46F8-B4BA-800EF72CBD8D@christopherwilkinson.eu>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com> <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu> <4DD928F0.90008@itforchange.net> <4DD9307A.6050206@wzb.eu> <4DD9314F.9060409@eff.org> <4DD93FEF.9000704@wzb.eu> <7116D8A9-96A9-46F8-B4BA-800EF72CBD8D@christopherwilkinson.eu>
Message-ID: <DE1C4FB0-83F4-41AC-89C3-87340770693B@ella.com>

Hi,

The problem with keeping a single list is that any strategic or tactical planning will be done by adhoc closed groups of self selected individuals.  That has happened for years and will probably continue to happen.

Then again having a closed list probably would not work as someone would be on the list whose real solidarity was with the PS/ICT so everything would leak anyway.  We will never be able to be as secretive or as single focused as PS/ICT and a 'closed' list will probably not achieve anything in the long run other than to give us false confidence that our information was not being misused and abused.

The IGC functions well as a place where a diverse group of CS leaning stakeholder groups and individuals (as well as observers) comes together to do some things, like present candidate lists etc and make generic pro CS statements.  To do anything serious, it must be done by coherent advocacy groups like APC or IT for Change and others, with the IGC serving as a clearinghouse for coordination when coordination is necessary or possible.  I do not think we can ever expect the IGC to be the action oriented group.  In a sense it is a multi-substakeholder group for Civil Society where various CS trends meet and find their common ground. But it seems the real advocacy emphasis has to come from other more focused groups.

a.

On 22 May 2011, at 13:13, CW Mail wrote:

> +1 supporting JH.
> 
> In any event, the discussion on IGC and IGF issues is in practice conducted by a small number of committed and informed people.
> It is beneficial that their and our discussion be conducted in public in a single forum.
> 
> CW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 22 May 2011, at 18:55, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 22.05.2011 17:52, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>> Can you elaborate your arguments, please?
>> 
>> I don't want to encourage what I argued against to begin with, another discussion about splitting the mailing list.
>> 
>> This mailing list has proven to be flexible enough to fulfill several functions, providing an open platform to discuss IG issues across single stakeholder groups and simultaneously providing the space to develop collective statements. It is actually amazing that this mailing list with its highly diverse list of subscribers has managed to survive for so many years without losing significant shares of subscribers (which doesn't say much about its actual readers though).
>> 
>> A splitting of the list risks destroying this space without any clear benefit. We don't have that many secrets to hide from other stakeholder groups (at least that I would know of) that seem worth taking such a chance. If there is a need for strategizing, small groups can always form offlist, and have often formed for that matter.
>> 
>> This mailing list is now 8 or 9 years old. It survived the end of WSIS and it might even survive the demise of the IGF. Its asset is its openness and its subscriber list. It would be sad if we destroyed it in the name of narrow understanding of civil society.
>> 
>> jeanette
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/22/11 5:49 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 22.05.2011 17:17, parminder wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sunday 22 May 2011 02:02 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> we've had this discussion about different lists countless times
>>>>>> before. Fortunately, I think, there was never a majority for those who
>>>>>> argued in favor of differentiating between IGF as an open
>>>>>> multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society advocacy
>>>>>> organization.
>>>>> Jeanette,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I did not understand what would you mean by non-differentiating between
>>>>> "IGF as an open multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society
>>>>> advocacy organization". Are the two not very different kinds of
>>>>> institutions?
>>>> 
>>>> They share one mailing list and I would advise against changing that.
>>>> 
>>>> jeanette
>>>>> 
>>>>> And our charter clearly poses IGC as a civil society advocate
>>>>> organisation. That is what we are supposed to be, if we are not very
>>>>> ably that at the moment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder
>>>>> 
>>>>>> It seems unlikely that a new discussion would lead to different
>>>>>> results. Therefore, if possible, lets not indulge in this issue again.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My pragmatic suggestion would be to form informal and temporary
>>>>>> subgroups for issues that need non-public coordination. The membership
>>>>>> in such subgroups would be hand-picked and thus intransparent. Since
>>>>>> statements on behalf of the IGC would still need voting, I don't see a
>>>>>> problem with that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 22.05.2011 10:18, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>>>>> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the
>>>>>>> request
>>>>>>> or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only
>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
>>>>>>> If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
>>>>>>> coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new
>>>>>>> list and
>>>>>>> how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your
>>>>>>> reactions
>>>>>>> first on the current list.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> izumi
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is
>>>>>>>> open to
>>>>>>>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government
>>>>>>>> officials,
>>>>>>>> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore,
>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to
>>>>>>>> share
>>>>>>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share
>>>>>>>> here, can
>>>>>>>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your
>>>>>>>> strategy
>>>>>>>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only
>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG
>>>>>>>> members will
>>>>>>>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>  governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>  http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 22 13:43:08 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 05:43:08 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <803988.56901.qm@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <803988.56901.qm@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi==YADjOvAH==xUSVxgyLibnfbePg@mail.gmail.com>

I think that if we advocate mutistakeholder, then we should work in
collaboration. If we start segregating the list, the reality is in the
developing world, there are people who wear many hats because there
are not enough people debating the issues or addressing the problems
in policy etc. I think down the track that the very people you were
trying to protect will end up being marginalised. If the
multistakeholder process is to be championed within the internet
governance debate, it becomes critical to championing the
multistakeholder process.

Without a doubt, one of the challenges is navigating through the
political dynamics and finding a forum and platform within which our
issues can be raised. That is a challenge that together as an
integrated group we can collaborate to discuss.

There is an off-chance, that do not share the multistakeholder process
and it signals to me that they have not fully bought into the
multistakeholder process and perhaps some kind of outreach can be
organised. This is something that can be fielded to the IGC
coordinators to watch for and strategically as a Caucus, create
mechanisms even within this list to encourage people to work together.

Sala
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes,
> Instead of splitting or developing differentiation between IGC CS mailing list members, to hode any information to share, we should understand the value of combine (single) mailing list.
> We should remain open to share information.
> If there is a problem of competitive intelligence, some of us may become members of other international institutions, but yes, CS members can't join Governmental institutions, so, let them do their work on their own way. If any of them join us for competitive intelligence, will learn good governance and examples from us (IGC CS).
>
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 21:55 PKT Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>On 22.05.2011 17:52, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>> Can you elaborate your arguments, please?
>>
>>I don't want to encourage what I argued against to begin with, another
>>discussion about splitting the mailing list.
>>
>>This mailing list has proven to be flexible enough to fulfill several
>>functions, providing an open platform to discuss IG issues across single
>>stakeholder groups and simultaneously providing the space to develop
>>collective statements. It is actually amazing that this mailing list
>>with its highly diverse list of subscribers has managed to survive for
>>so many years without losing significant shares of subscribers (which
>>doesn't say much about its actual readers though).
>>
>>A splitting of the list risks destroying this space without any clear
>>benefit. We don't have that many secrets to hide from other stakeholder
>>groups (at least that I would know of) that seem worth taking such a
>>chance. If there is a need for strategizing, small groups can always
>>form offlist, and have often formed for that matter.
>>
>>This mailing list is now 8 or 9 years old. It survived the end of WSIS
>>and it might even survive the demise of the IGF. Its asset is its
>>openness and its subscriber list. It would be sad if we destroyed it in
>>the name of narrow understanding of civil society.
>>
>>jeanette
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On 5/22/11 5:49 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 22.05.2011 17:17, parminder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday 22 May 2011 02:02 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we've had this discussion about different lists countless times
>>>>>> before. Fortunately, I think, there was never a majority for those who
>>>>>> argued in favor of differentiating between IGF as an open
>>>>>> multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society advocacy
>>>>>> organization.
>>>>> Jeanette,
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not understand what would you mean by non-differentiating between
>>>>> "IGF as an open multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society
>>>>> advocacy organization". Are the two not very different kinds of
>>>>> institutions?
>>>>
>>>> They share one mailing list and I would advise against changing that.
>>>>
>>>> jeanette
>>>>>
>>>>> And our charter clearly poses IGC as a civil society advocate
>>>>> organisation. That is what we are supposed to be, if we are not very
>>>>> ably that at the moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems unlikely that a new discussion would lead to different
>>>>>> results. Therefore, if possible, lets not indulge in this issue again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My pragmatic suggestion would be to form informal and temporary
>>>>>> subgroups for issues that need non-public coordination. The membership
>>>>>> in such subgroups would be hand-picked and thus intransparent. Since
>>>>>> statements on behalf of the IGC would still need voting, I don't see a
>>>>>> problem with that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22.05.2011 10:18, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>>>>> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the
>>>>>>> request
>>>>>>> or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only
>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
>>>>>>> If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
>>>>>>> coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new
>>>>>>> list and
>>>>>>> how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your
>>>>>>> reactions
>>>>>>> first on the current list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> izumi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is
>>>>>>>> open to
>>>>>>>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government
>>>>>>>> officials,
>>>>>>>> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore,
>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to
>>>>>>>> share
>>>>>>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share
>>>>>>>> here, can
>>>>>>>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your
>>>>>>>> strategy
>>>>>>>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only
>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG
>>>>>>>> members will
>>>>>>>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
Sala

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

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

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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sun May 22 13:48:22 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 19:48:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <DE1C4FB0-83F4-41AC-89C3-87340770693B@ella.com>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com> <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu> <4DD928F0.90008@itforchange.net> <4DD9307A.6050206@wzb.eu> <4DD9314F.9060409@eff.org> <4DD93FEF.9000704@wzb.eu> <7116D8A9-96A9-46F8-B4BA-800EF72CBD8D@christopherwilkinson.eu> <DE1C4FB0-83F4-41AC-89C3-87340770693B@ella.com>
Message-ID: <4DD94C66.8040100@wzb.eu>



On 22.05.2011 19:38, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The problem with keeping a single list is that any strategic or
> tactical planning will be done by adhoc closed groups of self
> selected individuals.  That has happened for years and will probably
> continue to happen.

That is what I meant in my earlier mail.
>
> Then again having a closed list probably would not work as someone
> would be on the list whose real solidarity was with the PS/ICT so
> everything would leak anyway.  We will never be able to be as
> secretive or as single focused as PS/ICT and a 'closed' list will
> probably not achieve anything in the long run other than to give us
> false confidence that our information was not being misused and
> abused.

I think the main problem has always been and that we are not as 
homogeneous as the private sector. The idea to create a new list for 
members only is based on the illusionary hope that we could become a 
stronger, less heterogeneous group.
>
> The IGC functions well as a place where a diverse group of CS leaning
> stakeholder groups and individuals (as well as observers) comes
> together to do some things, like present candidate lists etc and make
> generic pro CS statements.  To do anything serious, it must be done
> by coherent advocacy groups like APC or IT for Change and others,
> with the IGC serving as a clearinghouse for coordination when
> coordination is necessary or possible.

I fully agree. This division of work is not necessarily a bad thing. 
What counts in my view is that we maintain a transnational public space 
independent of any specific organization that addresses IG issues from 
cs/policy perspective.

jeanette

  I do not think we can ever
> expect the IGC to be the action oriented group.  In a sense it is a
> multi-substakeholder group for Civil Society where various CS trends
> meet and find their common ground. But it seems the real advocacy
> emphasis has to come from other more focused groups.
>
> a.
>
> On 22 May 2011, at 13:13, CW Mail wrote:
>
>> +1 supporting JH.
>>
>> In any event, the discussion on IGC and IGF issues is in practice
>> conducted by a small number of committed and informed people. It is
>> beneficial that their and our discussion be conducted in public in
>> a single forum.
>>
>> CW
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22 May 2011, at 18:55, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22.05.2011 17:52, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> Can you elaborate your arguments, please?
>>>
>>> I don't want to encourage what I argued against to begin with,
>>> another discussion about splitting the mailing list.
>>>
>>> This mailing list has proven to be flexible enough to fulfill
>>> several functions, providing an open platform to discuss IG
>>> issues across single stakeholder groups and simultaneously
>>> providing the space to develop collective statements. It is
>>> actually amazing that this mailing list with its highly diverse
>>> list of subscribers has managed to survive for so many years
>>> without losing significant shares of subscribers (which doesn't
>>> say much about its actual readers though).
>>>
>>> A splitting of the list risks destroying this space without any
>>> clear benefit. We don't have that many secrets to hide from other
>>> stakeholder groups (at least that I would know of) that seem
>>> worth taking such a chance. If there is a need for strategizing,
>>> small groups can always form offlist, and have often formed for
>>> that matter.
>>>
>>> This mailing list is now 8 or 9 years old. It survived the end of
>>> WSIS and it might even survive the demise of the IGF. Its asset
>>> is its openness and its subscriber list. It would be sad if we
>>> destroyed it in the name of narrow understanding of civil
>>> society.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/11 5:49 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22.05.2011 17:17, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday 22 May 2011 02:02 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we've had this discussion about different lists countless
>>>>>>> times before. Fortunately, I think, there was never a
>>>>>>> majority for those who argued in favor of differentiating
>>>>>>> between IGF as an open multistakeholder platform and IGC
>>>>>>> as a civil society advocacy organization.
>>>>>> Jeanette,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not understand what would you mean by
>>>>>> non-differentiating between "IGF as an open
>>>>>> multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society
>>>>>> advocacy organization". Are the two not very different
>>>>>> kinds of institutions?
>>>>>
>>>>> They share one mailing list and I would advise against
>>>>> changing that.
>>>>>
>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And our charter clearly poses IGC as a civil society
>>>>>> advocate organisation. That is what we are supposed to be,
>>>>>> if we are not very ably that at the moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems unlikely that a new discussion would lead to
>>>>>>> different results. Therefore, if possible, lets not
>>>>>>> indulge in this issue again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My pragmatic suggestion would be to form informal and
>>>>>>> temporary subgroups for issues that need non-public
>>>>>>> coordination. The membership in such subgroups would be
>>>>>>> hand-picked and thus intransparent. Since statements on
>>>>>>> behalf of the IGC would still need voting, I don't see a
>>>>>>> problem with that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22.05.2011 10:18, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>>>>>> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond
>>>>>>>> briefly to the request or suggestion Katitza made about
>>>>>>>> the need for creating a new, CS-only list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for
>>>>>>>> this. If there is enough support to go for voting,
>>>>>>>> then, yes, it will be the coordinators responsibility
>>>>>>>> to open for such voting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of
>>>>>>>> creating this new list and how many are not so, but
>>>>>>>> before doing so, please express your reactions first on
>>>>>>>> the current list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> izumi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that
>>>>>>>>> this list is open to other stakeholders including
>>>>>>>>> public authorities, government officials, technical
>>>>>>>>> community, and business sector representatives.
>>>>>>>>> Therefore, members need to understand that MAG
>>>>>>>>> members have a very difficult task to share
>>>>>>>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that
>>>>>>>>> we can share here, can always harm our collective
>>>>>>>>> efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy in
>>>>>>>>> advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list
>>>>>>>>> for IGC-only members that is close to their members.
>>>>>>>>> In that way, civil society MAG members will be able
>>>>>>>>> to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the
>>>>>>>>> list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit
>>>>>>>>> your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Translate this email:
>>>>>>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list,
>>>>>>> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your
>>>>>>> profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translate this email:
>>>>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list,
>>>>> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your
>>>>> profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email:
>>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile
>>> and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile
>> and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and
> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 22 13:49:05 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 05:49:05 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi==YADjOvAH==xUSVxgyLibnfbePg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <803988.56901.qm@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<BANLkTi==YADjOvAH==xUSVxgyLibnfbePg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimbiwZj88nZa5cek3UafKW1eEs82w@mail.gmail.com>

My apologies, lots of typos at 5:44am, this is what I meant to say:

I think that if we advocate the mutistakeholder, then we should work in
> collaboration. If we start segregating the list, the reality is in the
> developing world, there are those who will be marginalsed eg. there are people who wear many hats because there are not enough people debating the issues or addressing the problems
> in policy etc.

I think down the track that the very people you were trying to protect
will end up being marginalised. This is not a desirable outcome. If
the
 multistakeholder process is to be championed within the internet
governance debate, it becomes critical to champion/advocate the
multistakeholder process.

> Without a doubt, one of the challenges is navigating through the political dynamics and finding a forum and platform in which our issues can be raised. That is a challenge that together as an
> integrated group we can collaborate to discuss.
>
> There is an off-chance, that there may be elements (could be a person or an organisation) that do not share the multistakeholder process and it signals to me that they have not fully bought into the multistakeholder process and perhaps some kind of outreach can be organised. This is something that can be fielded to the IGC coordinators to watch for and strategically as a Caucus, create mechanisms even within this list to encourage people to work together.

If it does not work here, we cannot export the model. These are my
personal opinions and do not represent the opinion of any of my
affiliations.
>
> Sala



On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that if we advocate mutistakeholder, then we should work in
> collaboration. If we start segregating the list, the reality is in the
> developing world, there are people who wear many hats because there
> are not enough people debating the issues or addressing the problems
> in policy etc. I think down the track that the very people you were
> trying to protect will end up being marginalised. If the
> multistakeholder process is to be championed within the internet
> governance debate, it becomes critical to championing the
> multistakeholder process.
>
> Without a doubt, one of the challenges is navigating through the
> political dynamics and finding a forum and platform within which our
> issues can be raised. That is a challenge that together as an
> integrated group we can collaborate to discuss.
>
> There is an off-chance, that do not share the multistakeholder process
> and it signals to me that they have not fully bought into the
> multistakeholder process and perhaps some kind of outreach can be
> organised. This is something that can be fielded to the IGC
> coordinators to watch for and strategically as a Caucus, create
> mechanisms even within this list to encourage people to work together.
>
> Sala
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yes,
>> Instead of splitting or developing differentiation between IGC CS mailing list members, to hode any information to share, we should understand the value of combine (single) mailing list.
>> We should remain open to share information.
>> If there is a problem of competitive intelligence, some of us may become members of other international institutions, but yes, CS members can't join Governmental institutions, so, let them do their work on their own way. If any of them join us for competitive intelligence, will learn good governance and examples from us (IGC CS).
>>
>> On Sun, 22 May 2011 21:55 PKT Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 22.05.2011 17:52, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> Can you elaborate your arguments, please?
>>>
>>>I don't want to encourage what I argued against to begin with, another
>>>discussion about splitting the mailing list.
>>>
>>>This mailing list has proven to be flexible enough to fulfill several
>>>functions, providing an open platform to discuss IG issues across single
>>>stakeholder groups and simultaneously providing the space to develop
>>>collective statements. It is actually amazing that this mailing list
>>>with its highly diverse list of subscribers has managed to survive for
>>>so many years without losing significant shares of subscribers (which
>>>doesn't say much about its actual readers though).
>>>
>>>A splitting of the list risks destroying this space without any clear
>>>benefit. We don't have that many secrets to hide from other stakeholder
>>>groups (at least that I would know of) that seem worth taking such a
>>>chance. If there is a need for strategizing, small groups can always
>>>form offlist, and have often formed for that matter.
>>>
>>>This mailing list is now 8 or 9 years old. It survived the end of WSIS
>>>and it might even survive the demise of the IGF. Its asset is its
>>>openness and its subscriber list. It would be sad if we destroyed it in
>>>the name of narrow understanding of civil society.
>>>
>>>jeanette
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/11 5:49 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22.05.2011 17:17, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday 22 May 2011 02:02 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we've had this discussion about different lists countless times
>>>>>>> before. Fortunately, I think, there was never a majority for those who
>>>>>>> argued in favor of differentiating between IGF as an open
>>>>>>> multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society advocacy
>>>>>>> organization.
>>>>>> Jeanette,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not understand what would you mean by non-differentiating between
>>>>>> "IGF as an open multistakeholder platform and IGC as a civil society
>>>>>> advocacy organization". Are the two not very different kinds of
>>>>>> institutions?
>>>>>
>>>>> They share one mailing list and I would advise against changing that.
>>>>>
>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And our charter clearly poses IGC as a civil society advocate
>>>>>> organisation. That is what we are supposed to be, if we are not very
>>>>>> ably that at the moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems unlikely that a new discussion would lead to different
>>>>>>> results. Therefore, if possible, lets not indulge in this issue again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My pragmatic suggestion would be to form informal and temporary
>>>>>>> subgroups for issues that need non-public coordination. The membership
>>>>>>> in such subgroups would be hand-picked and thus intransparent. Since
>>>>>>> statements on behalf of the IGC would still need voting, I don't see a
>>>>>>> problem with that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22.05.2011 10:18, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>>>>>> As one of the co-coordinators, I would like to respond briefly to the
>>>>>>>> request
>>>>>>>> or suggestion Katitza made about the need for creating a new, CS-only
>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As already indicated here, there are pros and cons for this.
>>>>>>>> If there is enough support to go for voting, then, yes, it will be the
>>>>>>>> coordinators responsibility to open for such voting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like to see how many are explicitly in favor of creating this new
>>>>>>>> list and
>>>>>>>> how many are not so, but before doing so, please express your
>>>>>>>> reactions
>>>>>>>> first on the current list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> izumi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is
>>>>>>>>> open to
>>>>>>>>> other stakeholders including public authorities, government
>>>>>>>>> officials,
>>>>>>>>> technical community, and business sector representatives. Therefore,
>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>> need to understand that MAG members have a very difficult task to
>>>>>>>>> share
>>>>>>>>> strategies in a public list. Any public strategy that we can share
>>>>>>>>> here, can
>>>>>>>>> always harm our collective efforts in spaces where disclosing your
>>>>>>>>> strategy
>>>>>>>>> in advance is a big problem and can harm our work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only
>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>> that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG
>>>>>>>>> members will
>>>>>>>>> be able to provide a better report after the meeting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All the best, Katitza
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sala
>
> "Stillness in the midst of the noise".
>



-- 
Sala

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Sun May 22 13:53:13 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 19:53:13 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <DE1C4FB0-83F4-41AC-89C3-87340770693B@ella.com>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com> <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu> <4DD928F0.90008@itforchange.net> <4DD9307A.6050206@wzb.eu> <4DD9314F.9060409@eff.org> <4DD93FEF.9000704@wzb.eu> <7116D8A9-96A9-46F8-B4BA-800EF72CBD8D@christopherwilkinson.eu> <DE1C4FB0-83F4-41AC-89C3-87340770693B@ella.com>
Message-ID: <4DD94D89.9050607@eff.org>

Hi there,

On 5/22/11 7:38 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> The IGC functions well as a place where a diverse group of CS leaning stakeholder groups and individuals (as well as observers) comes together to do some things, like present candidate lists etc and make generic pro CS statements.  To do anything serious, it must be done by coherent advocacy groups like APC or IT for Change and others, with the IGC serving as a clearinghouse for coordination when coordination is necessary or possible.  I do not think we can ever expect the IGC to be the action oriented group.  In a sense it is a multi-substakeholder group for Civil Society where various CS trends meet and find their common ground. But it seems the real advocacy emphasis has to come from other more focused groups.

I am happy with this answer and addressed my concerns. It was quite 
important to have it clear since I was elected by the IGC.

Many thanks,

-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Sun May 22 14:48:45 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 14:48:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD94D89.9050607@eff.org>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com> <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu> <4DD928F0.90008@itforchange.net> <4DD9307A.6050206@wzb.eu> <4DD9314F.9060409@eff.org> <4DD93FEF.9000704@wzb.eu> <7116D8A9-96A9-46F8-B4BA-800EF72CBD8D@christopherwilkinson.eu> <DE1C4FB0-83F4-41AC-89C3-87340770693B@ella.com> <4DD94D89.9050607@eff.org>
Message-ID: <5F614A8C-B49B-42DC-A85B-6F9C81993846@ella.com>

Hi,

Just my opinion but i think the responsibilities of someone put forward to something like the MAG, or any other representational group, involves several aspects.

While understanding that in the end, you make decisions based on your own perceptions and priorities, one needs to do at least the following;

- make sure that the views the IGC has come to consensus on are presented adequately and completely and not dismissed with facile PS/ICT arguments
- make sure to the extent possible to make sure all CS viewpoints get a hearing, this often would require mentoring and assisting those who are new to the process or in the minority to get their statements heard
- to work for a consensus that includes CS ideas and postions
- to be a bi-drectonal method by which the IGC remains informed of what is going on in the MAG and by which the IGC can inject its opinions
- to explain yourself to the IGC, if in addition to presenting the IGC's opinion, you have an additional strategy because of your own advocacy goals.
- to do your best to get as many CS people on the various panels, especially high level ones, as possible - but to make sure you are not only helping your natural friends and allies within CS, but helping the diverse range of CS opinion.

It is a challenging and difficult role that involves a lot of work and involves finding a way to balance ones own goals with the goals of the caucus.

Over the years, from my vantage point as a watcher, I think various CS reps to the MAG have done an admirable job.  Others less so.

Ain't gonna say who i think did which - at least not outside of a nomcom.

a.



On 22 May 2011, at 13:53, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

> Hi there,
> 
> On 5/22/11 7:38 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> The IGC functions well as a place where a diverse group of CS leaning stakeholder groups and individuals (as well as observers) comes together to do some things, like present candidate lists etc and make generic pro CS statements.  To do anything serious, it must be done by coherent advocacy groups like APC or IT for Change and others, with the IGC serving as a clearinghouse for coordination when coordination is necessary or possible.  I do not think we can ever expect the IGC to be the action oriented group.  In a sense it is a multi-substakeholder group for Civil Society where various CS trends meet and find their common ground. But it seems the real advocacy emphasis has to come from other more focused groups.
> 
> I am happy with this answer and addressed my concerns. It was quite important to have it clear since I was elected by the IGC.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> -- 
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
> 
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
> 
> 

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Sun May 22 18:16:29 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 00:16:29 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <5F614A8C-B49B-42DC-A85B-6F9C81993846@ella.com>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com> <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu> <4DD928F0.90008@itforchange.net> <4DD9307A.6050206@wzb.eu> <4DD9314F.9060409@eff.org> <4DD93FEF.9000704@wzb.eu> <7116D8A9-96A9-46F8-B4BA-800EF72CBD8D@christopherwilkinson.eu> <DE1C4FB0-83F4-41AC-89C3-87340770693B@ella.com> <4DD94D89.9050607@eff.org> <5F614A8C-B49B-42DC-A85B-6F9C81993846@ella.com>
Message-ID: <4DD98B3D.1060504@eff.org>

It is the job of the coordinators "to work for a consensus that includes 
CS ideas and postions ". MAGs members can help but it is not our job. We 
already have lot of work (very time consuming). That is why you have 
coordinators/liaisons that facilitate the job of the community with 
their representatives at certain meetings.

Katitza
On 5/22/11 8:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just my opinion but i think the responsibilities of someone put forward to something like the MAG, or any other representational group, involves several aspects.
>
> While understanding that in the end, you make decisions based on your own perceptions and priorities, one needs to do at least the following;
>
> - make sure that the views the IGC has come to consensus on are presented adequately and completely and not dismissed with facile PS/ICT arguments
> - make sure to the extent possible to make sure all CS viewpoints get a hearing, this often would require mentoring and assisting those who are new to the process or in the minority to get their statements heard
> - to work for a consensus that includes CS ideas and postions
> - to be a bi-drectonal method by which the IGC remains informed of what is going on in the MAG and by which the IGC can inject its opinions
> - to explain yourself to the IGC, if in addition to presenting the IGC's opinion, you have an additional strategy because of your own advocacy goals.
> - to do your best to get as many CS people on the various panels, especially high level ones, as possible - but to make sure you are not only helping your natural friends and allies within CS, but helping the diverse range of CS opinion.
>
> It is a challenging and difficult role that involves a lot of work and involves finding a way to balance ones own goals with the goals of the caucus.
>
> Over the years, from my vantage point as a watcher, I think various CS reps to the MAG have done an admirable job.  Others less so.
>
> Ain't gonna say who i think did which - at least not outside of a nomcom.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 22 May 2011, at 13:53, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> On 5/22/11 7:38 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> The IGC functions well as a place where a diverse group of CS leaning stakeholder groups and individuals (as well as observers) comes together to do some things, like present candidate lists etc and make generic pro CS statements.  To do anything serious, it must be done by coherent advocacy groups like APC or IT for Change and others, with the IGC serving as a clearinghouse for coordination when coordination is necessary or possible.  I do not think we can ever expect the IGC to be the action oriented group.  In a sense it is a multi-substakeholder group for Civil Society where various CS trends meet and find their common ground. But it seems the real advocacy emphasis has to come from other more focused groups.
>> I am happy with this answer and addressed my concerns. It was quite important to have it clear since I was elected by the IGC.
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> -- 
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> International Rights Director
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> katitza at eff.org
>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>
>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Sun May 22 18:19:03 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 00:19:03 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD98B3D.1060504@eff.org>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com> <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu> <4DD928F0.90008@itforchange.net> <4DD9307A.6050206@wzb.eu> <4DD9314F.9060409@eff.org> <4DD93FEF.9000704@wzb.eu> <7116D8A9-96A9-46F8-B4BA-800EF72CBD8D@christopherwilkinson.eu> <DE1C4FB0-83F4-41AC-89C3-87340770693B@ella.com> <4DD94D89.9050607@eff.org> <5F614A8C-B49B-42DC-A85B-6F9C81993846@ella.com> <4DD98B3D.1060504@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DD98BD7.6070203@eff.org>

I have heard within the IGF (from public authorities) and other venues: 
Who is saying what? How many people has back up certain position. IGC 
has not developed policy papers compare to other civil society 
coalitions like CSISAC, IRP. Papers that have been signed by more than 100+

The comment of Divine is so in the heart of IGC weakness.

On 5/23/11 12:16 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> It is the job of the coordinators "to work for a consensus that 
> includes CS ideas and postions ". MAGs members can help but it is not 
> our job. We already have lot of work (very time consuming). That is 
> why you have coordinators/liaisons that facilitate the job of the 
> community with their representatives at certain meetings.
>
> Katitza
> On 5/22/11 8:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just my opinion but i think the responsibilities of someone put 
>> forward to something like the MAG, or any other representational 
>> group, involves several aspects.
>>
>> While understanding that in the end, you make decisions based on your 
>> own perceptions and priorities, one needs to do at least the following;
>>
>> - make sure that the views the IGC has come to consensus on are 
>> presented adequately and completely and not dismissed with facile 
>> PS/ICT arguments
>> - make sure to the extent possible to make sure all CS viewpoints get 
>> a hearing, this often would require mentoring and assisting those who 
>> are new to the process or in the minority to get their statements heard
>> - to work for a consensus that includes CS ideas and postions
>> - to be a bi-drectonal method by which the IGC remains informed of 
>> what is going on in the MAG and by which the IGC can inject its opinions
>> - to explain yourself to the IGC, if in addition to presenting the 
>> IGC's opinion, you have an additional strategy because of your own 
>> advocacy goals.
>> - to do your best to get as many CS people on the various panels, 
>> especially high level ones, as possible - but to make sure you are 
>> not only helping your natural friends and allies within CS, but 
>> helping the diverse range of CS opinion.
>>
>> It is a challenging and difficult role that involves a lot of work 
>> and involves finding a way to balance ones own goals with the goals 
>> of the caucus.
>>
>> Over the years, from my vantage point as a watcher, I think various 
>> CS reps to the MAG have done an admirable job.  Others less so.
>>
>> Ain't gonna say who i think did which - at least not outside of a 
>> nomcom.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22 May 2011, at 13:53, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> On 5/22/11 7:38 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> The IGC functions well as a place where a diverse group of CS 
>>>> leaning stakeholder groups and individuals (as well as observers) 
>>>> comes together to do some things, like present candidate lists etc 
>>>> and make generic pro CS statements.  To do anything serious, it 
>>>> must be done by coherent advocacy groups like APC or IT for Change 
>>>> and others, with the IGC serving as a clearinghouse for 
>>>> coordination when coordination is necessary or possible.  I do not 
>>>> think we can ever expect the IGC to be the action oriented group.  
>>>> In a sense it is a multi-substakeholder group for Civil Society 
>>>> where various CS trends meet and find their common ground. But it 
>>>> seems the real advocacy emphasis has to come from other more 
>>>> focused groups.
>>> I am happy with this answer and addressed my concerns. It was quite 
>>> important to have it clear since I was elected by the IGC.
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Katitza Rodriguez
>>> International Rights Director
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> katitza at eff.org
>>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>>
>>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and 
>>> freedom of speech since 1990
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Sun May 22 19:12:09 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 19:12:09 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD98B3D.1060504@eff.org>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com> <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu> <4DD928F0.90008@itforchange.net> <4DD9307A.6050206@wzb.eu> <4DD9314F.9060409@eff.org> <4DD93FEF.9000704@wzb.eu> <7116D8A9-96A9-46F8-B4BA-800EF72CBD8D@christopherwilkinson.eu> <DE1C4FB0-83F4-41AC-89C3-87340770693B@ella.com> <4DD94D89.9050607@eff.org> <5F614A8C-B49B-42DC-A85B-6F9C81993846@ella.com> <4DD98B3D.1060504@eff.org>
Message-ID: <FE62AF00-612C-4047-98D1-BFB462E08299@ella.com>

Hi,


On 22 May 2011, at 18:16, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

> It is the job of the coordinators "to work for a consensus that includes CS ideas and postions ". MAGs members can help but it is not our job. We already have lot of work (very time consuming). That is why you have coordinators/liaisons that facilitate the job of the community with their representatives at certain meetings.

What I meant is that is that i beleive it is up to IGC named participants to make sure that the consensus contained as much as possible from the the CS point of view.  Which coordinators do you mea - the IGC coordinators?  they have little to no voice in the MAG.  The MAG's consensus is created by the IGC's members and others agreeing with each pother.


And yes it is a lot of work.  I figure that goes along with the honor of be one of the select few.


On 22 May 2011, at 18:19, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

> I have heard within the IGF (from public authorities) and other venues: Who is saying what? How many people has back up certain position. IGC has not developed policy papers compare to other civil society coalitions like CSISAC, IRP. Papers that have been signed by more than 100+
> 
> The comment of Divine is so in the heart of IGC weakness.


I don't think I understand this comment.

Which public authorities?

When have you seen hundreds of signatures on anyone in the IGF's positions.  I think the IGC's positions come with a higher degree of agreement than many or most other positions that are put forward in the IGF.  I expect most other positions are written by the policy director of the group and vetted by some executive council somewhere.  Whereas most of the IGC positions have been subjected to a vote of the membership of however many we have.

a.

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Sun May 22 19:14:15 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 01:14:15 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <FE62AF00-612C-4047-98D1-BFB462E08299@ella.com>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <BANLkTikNHu3_DWjBuSkt-k+mrV8pwJ0xdg@mail.gmail.com> <4DD8CA1C.7040905@wzb.eu> <4DD928F0.90008@itforchange.net> <4DD9307A.6050206@wzb.eu> <4DD9314F.9060409@eff.org> <4DD93FEF.9000704@wzb.eu> <7116D8A9-96A9-46F8-B4BA-800EF72CBD8D@christopherwilkinson.eu> <DE1C4FB0-83F4-41AC-89C3-87340770693B@ella.com> <4DD94D89.9050607@eff.org> <5F614A8C-B49B-42DC-A85B-6F9C81993846@ella.com> <4DD98B3D.1060504@eff.org> <FE62AF00-612C-4047-98D1-BFB462E08299@ella.com>
Message-ID: <4DD998C7.7060403@eff.org>

ohhhhh that is fine! I did not understand it! It's fine!

On 5/23/11 1:12 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 22 May 2011, at 18:16, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> It is the job of the coordinators "to work for a consensus that includes CS ideas and postions ". MAGs members can help but it is not our job. We already have lot of work (very time consuming). That is why you have coordinators/liaisons that facilitate the job of the community with their representatives at certain meetings.
> What I meant is that is that i beleive it is up to IGC named participants to make sure that the consensus contained as much as possible from the the CS point of view.  Which coordinators do you mea - the IGC coordinators?  they have little to no voice in the MAG.  The MAG's consensus is created by the IGC's members and others agreeing with each pother.
>
>
> And yes it is a lot of work.  I figure that goes along with the honor of be one of the select few.
>
>
> On 22 May 2011, at 18:19, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> I have heard within the IGF (from public authorities) and other venues: Who is saying what? How many people has back up certain position. IGC has not developed policy papers compare to other civil society coalitions like CSISAC, IRP. Papers that have been signed by more than 100+
>>
>> The comment of Divine is so in the heart of IGC weakness.
>
> I don't think I understand this comment.
>
> Which public authorities?
>
> When have you seen hundreds of signatures on anyone in the IGF's positions.  I think the IGC's positions come with a higher degree of agreement than many or most other positions that are put forward in the IGF.  I expect most other positions are written by the policy director of the group and vetted by some executive council somewhere.  Whereas most of the IGC positions have been subjected to a vote of the membership of however many we have.
>
> a.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Sun May 22 20:51:57 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 20:51:57 -0400
Subject: [governance] Towards Singapore
In-Reply-To: <1F9A92B2-756F-45BF-B49D-E6105D211925@uzh.ch>
References: <C9FE888B.21086%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,<1F9A92B2-756F-45BF-B49D-E6105D211925@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035A3AD554@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Hi,


Like Bill I enjoyed your write-up Wolfgang; but like Bill  agree that splitting the gTLD applicant group at this point is probably bad politics, especially if the areas of disagreement - are being labelled as the work of the devil.  (Wolfgang, you must have missed the memo, the world didn't end yesterday ; )

But seriously from a slight distance the - natural - tensions between the  ICANN Board and the GAC are not quite  as apocalyptic as you make it sound: it means the system is working.

Seriously, not so long ago many government reps hanging at GAC were wondering what was the point of them attending the meetings at all. Ah for the good old days when the GAC was bored.

The ICANN Board - the same one (with new members) embarrassed by having Karl Rove and the porn industry push them around a few year ago (now that was an odd couple/coalition) - are not just bowing and scraping before governments and are insisting on their independent authority. Which was the plan all along.

Like I said if the system is working, with all its faults, tension should be high when things of consequence are being debated. And when it's all done everyone will go have a beer or wine, and live to fight another day.

On the other hand, if there was clear and transparent process for contentious gTLDs to go through, while others pass through the system unchallenged at a faster pace, that would be fine.

But until the rules are settled there for all, then - the rules aren't settled.

Ultimately though the ICANN Board (and staff) which dragged their heels for years in getting a gTLD process set up can only blame themselves, since if the rules were worked through say five or 10 years ago, the argument that you don;t need governments to lead the way on rule-making here would be far stronger.  

Still, while great theater I doubt the gTLD issue will unravel ICANN.   

Lee





________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 9:41 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards Singapore

Hi Wolfgang

On May 22, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> FYI
>
> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/05/18/high-noon-in-singapore

Thanks for the pointer, a nice read.  And I enjoyed the blissful pic of you, looks like an ad for some good earphones :-)

I was going to ask something on his site, but since Kieren requires everything but a blood sample to register and respond to blog posts, I'll do it here.  Re: your suggestion,

<If consensus cannot be reached quickly on the scorecard issues, one approach could be to cut the package into two parts and move forward at different speeds on two levels.  The final version of the “Draft Applicant Guidebook” (DAG) could be adopted “in principle” while at the same time the five to seven remaining paragraphs, where the devil feeds the fire, could be put temporarily into so-called “brackets”.  ICANN would not move from, DAG 5.0 to DAG 6.0 but to DAG 5.1. Based on such a basic agreement one could do two things at once: start the process with all those strings which are not touched by the devil’s paragraphs and do not have the potential to create any type of controversy (this could be a group of about 50+ new gTLDs) and move forward with this 1st basket of uncontroversial applications in Singapore and, at the same time, continue negotiations among the involved parties to remove the brackets from the devils paragraphs as quick as possible, hopefully until the 42nd meeting in Dakar, October 2011 which would than open the door for applications which would go into a 2nd basket.>

I have to wonder whether this is necessarily a good idea from a negotiation standpoint.  Separating out the "devil’s paragraphs" would alter the incentives structures and could complicate the search for compromises on those issues.  Inter alia, there'd be no scope for leveraging tactical issue-linkages or using the prospect of being responsible for sinking the whole deal to incent reluctant parties to gulp hard and say ok.  This is part of why the WTO always does its huge multi-issue trade rounds as "single undertakings" in which all regime elements and national schedules must be finalized by the same deadline (although there are some specific factors making that increasingly problematic in trade).  One also wonders about the consequences, including from FoE and competitive standpoints, of categorizing some gTLDs as noncontroversial and therefore privileged to go first while others that offend some government's or trademark holder's tender sensibilities languish waiting for a successful resolution that very might not happen by Dakar, or beyond.

Bottom line, there can be pluses and minuses to decomposing a complex deal in order to urgently reach agreement on a subset of issues.  These might merit some assessment and weighing...

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 jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon May 23 00:06:38 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 12:06:38 +0800
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DD9DD4E.3030906@ciroap.org>

On 22/05/11 00:19, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> I also would like to call attention to the fact that this list is open
> to other stakeholders including public authorities, government
> officials, technical community, and business sector representatives.
> Therefore, members need to understand that MAG members have a very
> difficult task to share strategies in a public list. Any public
> strategy that we can share here, can always harm our collective
> efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy in advance is a big
> problem and can harm our work.
>
> I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for IGC-only
> members that is close to their members. In that way, civil society MAG
> members will be able to provide a better report after the meeting.

Now that we have an online membership database, it is possible -
trivial, in fact - for me to create a parallel mailing list consisting
of those who voted in the last election and self-affirmed their
membership of the IGC.  Members would not have to separately subscribe
or unsubscribe; subscription to the parallel list would be automatic for
members of the main list who voted, and unsubscription from the main
list would propagate to the parallel list.  The archives of the parallel
list could be restricted to its members.  However for privacy reasons I
would like to ask whether anyone objects to being included on such a
list?  Also, are there any concerns that this would breach our charter
(I don't think so, myself)?

-- 

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

Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups
that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent
and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member
organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
_www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org/>_
_Twitter @ConsumersInt <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int>_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110523/774407e0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110523/774407e0/attachment.bin>

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon May 23 00:18:43 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 07:18:43 +0300
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD9DD4E.3030906@ciroap.org>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <4DD9DD4E.3030906@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikSqNMLrTfhXmrh9itBn7AnA_StfQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

<snip>

> list.  The archives of the parallel list could be restricted to its
> members.  However for privacy reasons I would like to ask whether anyone
> objects to being included on such a list?  Also, are there any concerns that
> this would breach our charter (I don't think so, myself)?


I think you would need consensus to take such an action, which I don't
think you have at the moment.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon May 23 01:00:57 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 13:00:57 +0800
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikSqNMLrTfhXmrh9itBn7AnA_StfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org> <4DD9DD4E.3030906@ciroap.org> <BANLkTikSqNMLrTfhXmrh9itBn7AnA_StfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DD9EA09.8040905@ciroap.org>

On 23/05/11 12:18, McTim wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>> list.  The archives of the parallel list could be restricted to its
>> members.  However for privacy reasons I would like to ask whether anyone
>> objects to being included on such a list?  Also, are there any concerns that
>> this would breach our charter (I don't think so, myself)?
> I think you would need consensus to take such an action, which I don't
> think you have at the moment

Without necessarily accepting that (IMHO consensus is required for
substantive things like issuing statements, not for internal procedural
things like creating mailing lists), I agree that there doesn't seem to
be enough support to warrant creating it yet.  But if we don't create
it, this shouldn't be on the ground of transparency.  Currently people
send sensitive posts to ad-hoc subsets of IGC members (such as past and
present coordinators) instead of to the list.  Having a closed list of
self-affirmed members would be more transparent than this.

-- 

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

Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups
that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent
and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member
organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
_www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org/>_
_Twitter @ConsumersInt <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int>_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110523/2d740410/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110523/2d740410/attachment.bin>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Mon May 23 04:22:59 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 10:22:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] Towards Singapore
In-Reply-To: <D9176A66-8605-45AB-80A6-75DBD063D370@ella.com>
References: <C9FE888B.21086%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <BANLkTinfqNwizwEnUjV79iN9fVyEhvteMA@mail.gmail.com> <D9176A66-8605-45AB-80A6-75DBD063D370@ella.com>
Message-ID: <7A3CFF83-1CCF-4FAD-B672-AFE622E3FE6A@uzh.ch>

Hi

On May 22, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Sooner or later that alternate root will get going.  The Russians and Chinese threatened several years ago to start separate root if they did not get their IDNs right away, and ICANN succumbed.  It is unfortunate that no social entrepreneur is standing in the wings nearly ready to spring out a well considered and operationally sound DNS replacement for what will only be seen as a moribund ICANN if Singapore ends up giving us Yet Another Delay. 

I still would tend to expect it to come from governments > entrepreneurs, no?

On a somewhat related note: Bob Kahn was named an ITU Laureate at the 2010 WTISD, CNRI and ITU have entered into a cooperation agreement, and there is an ITU Handle System Testbed operated by its Corporate Strategy Division http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/emerging_trends/handle_system/itu_testbed.html.  I heard there was some sort of announcement about further steps during the WSIS Forum, but don't know the details.  Saw Bob at the US Mission's IG event Friday but forgot to ask about this.  At a minimum, maybe been a development to watch, need to get more info. 

Also on the ITU, notable that it just signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime regarding cybercrime http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2011/17.aspx.

Best,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110523/4b37f653/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 miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Mon May 23 11:44:59 2011
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 09:44:59 -0600
Subject: [governance] IGF plus IGC + only members list.
In-Reply-To: <4DD9EA09.8040905@ciroap.org>
References: <4DD7E60B.7080803@eff.org>
	<4DD9DD4E.3030906@ciroap.org>
	<BANLkTikSqNMLrTfhXmrh9itBn7AnA_StfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DD9EA09.8040905@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikbNL13TXixg9rgTQRhn5zejp4jBA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

In my capacity of netizen, IGC has been very helpful to keep informed about
IG issues and discussions, even to contribute suggestions in my personal
capacity to the group and influence a little IG issues as an individual, and
always respecting different peoples,NGOs and entities positions.

For me, IGC is a very effective space of collaboration.

I differentiate permanently between me as a person and my role as
international civil servant as Ginger explained. I agree also with Avri,
regarding the effectiveness of the advocacy function conducted by more
focused groups, which may or may not in 100% agreement with IGC standpoints.

As Katitza said, is very difficult from a negotiations point of view, to go
to meeting having the others know your positions in advance. Nevertheless,
if IGC is on the side of the principles, its positions will be known anyway,
even in the absence of the list or the splitting of it.

I encourage you to keep the good work, in spite of the difficulties.

Best,

Miguel

Disclaimer
My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my
employer or any other institution

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>  On 23/05/11 12:18, McTim wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
>  list.  The archives of the parallel list could be restricted to its
> members.  However for privacy reasons I would like to ask whether anyone
> objects to being included on such a list?  Also, are there any concerns that
> this would breach our charter (I don't think so, myself)?
>
>  I think you would need consensus to take such an action, which I don't
> think you have at the moment
>
>
> Without necessarily accepting that (IMHO consensus is required for
> substantive things like issuing statements, not for internal procedural
> things like creating mailing lists), I agree that there doesn't seem to be
> enough support to warrant creating it yet.  But if we don't create it, this
> shouldn't be on the ground of transparency.  Currently people send sensitive
> posts to ad-hoc subsets of IGC members (such as past and present
> coordinators) instead of to the list.  Having a closed list of self-affirmed
> members would be more transparent than this.
>
>
> --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups
> that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and
> authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations
> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help
> protect and empower consumers everywhere.
> *www.consumersinternational.org*
> *Twitter @ConsumersInt <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int>*
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110523/44242870/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 ias_pk at yahoo.com  Mon May 23 14:38:55 2011
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 11:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] ICANN to approve gTLD program
Message-ID: <530636.7445.qm@web161015.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Dear Friends at IGC CS.

ICANN Board is going to approve gTLD program on 20th June 2011 During Singapore Meeting.

GAC has helped ICANN Board to resolve remaining issues.

This latest hopeful development will open many more diversified business opportunities for the virtual estates on the globe of internet and to lay new layers of the internet.

However, the cost of the Application fee and the conflict Resolution through Bidding must be reviewed.

Regards

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Mon May 23 19:56:23 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 01:56:23 +0200
Subject: [governance] US Promotes Multilateral System Of Internet Governance
 In Geneva
Message-ID: <4DDAF427.3060400@eff.org>

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/05/24/us-promotes-multilateral-system-of-internet-governance/?utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts

Betty King, United States Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, has declared 
US support for a multilateral system of internet governance and an open 
internet.

The statement comes at a time when the US government is coming under 
international scrutiny for its unilateral actions online to take down 
websites found infringing intellectual property rights and other crimes.

King made the remarks at a 20 May event at the US mission. The press 
release and her remarks are available here 
<http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/US-Amb-King-on-Inet-Gov-20-May-2011.htm>.

For /Intellectual Property Watch/ articles on this issue, please see 
here 
<http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/category/themes/information-and-communications-technology/>. 


The programme of the mission event included:

/Program/

1400: Welcome Remarks

. Ambassador Betty King, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United 
Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva

. Vint Cerf, Chief Internet Evangelist, Google.

1415 -- 1530: Panel 1 -- Internet Governance and the Open Internet

. Moderator: Marilyn Cade, IGF USA

. How the Internet Works from a Policymakers Perspective
Patrik Falstrom, Distinguished Consulting Engineer, CISCO

. The Case for Multistakeholder Governance
Jovan Kurbalija, Founding Director, Diplo Foundation

. National ICT Strategy Development: A Developing Country Perspective
Alice Wanjira-Munyua, Chair of the Organizing Committee,
2011 Nairobi Internet Governance Forum

Question and Answer

1530 -- 1600: Coffee Break

1600 -- 1730: Panel II -- The Link between Internet Innovation and 
Economic Competitiveness

. Moderator: Douglas Griffiths, Deputy Chief of Mission, US Mission Geneva

. The Economic Argument For An Open Internet
Stefan Krawczyk, Sr. Director and Counsel Government Relations Europe, eBay

. Snapshot of Networked Readiness In The World
Jennifer Blanke, Lead Economist, Director and Head of the Center for 
Global Competitiveness and Performance, World Economic Forum

. National ICT Policy and Regulation and Internet Sector Development.
Speaker To Be Determined

Question and Answer

1730: Closing Remarks

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110524/824a57c2/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 divina.meigs at orange.fr  Tue May 24 00:21:49 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 06:21:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <5F614A8C-B49B-42DC-A85B-6F9C81993846@ella.com>
Message-ID: <CA00FEFD.21178%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Dear all,

I have been waiting official confirmation until the last minute ... And it
seems I will be able to attend the e-G8 forum. I should make it clear that
it is not upon the invitation of the French government ...

In any case, considering the situation and the programme, I am not sure
there will be opportunities to speak much, but I will try to do some
reporting back on major exchanges...

Best
Divina 


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Tue May 24 03:18:58 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 09:18:58 +0200
Subject: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
Message-ID: <4DDB5BE2.60102@apc.org>

Dear all

I have not had time to draft a statement on the working group on IGF
improvements but I have discussed the matter with lots of people and
this morning, on the panel dedicated to this, I thought of making the
following points.  I will check in with Parminder and Marilia first, but
based on what we have been discussing the key points are:

1. It is important for the working group to continue / have its mandate
extended:
* The IGF needs to address some key weaknesses if it is to be a
meaningful forum for dialogue on global internet policy among different
stakeholders.
* There are enough good proposals for IGF improvements on the table. The
working group has received sufficient input from stakeholders,
complemented by proposals made by members of the working group.
What it did not complete was synthesising proposed changes, and reaching
agreement on such changes.
* Inspite of some disagreement, there was also substantial common
ground, e.g. on the importance of the IGF and its fundamental character
as a forum for dialogue as opposed to a policy negotiating forum.

2. Continuation should be linked to a clear decisions on the work
procedures and work schedule/timeline of the working group. In particular:

* Assigning a chair and a co-chair.
* Assistance from the secretariat (who, how, what)
* Convening a small drafting group with representatives of all
stakeholders (I would propose one person per non-governmental
stakeholder group = 3 + 5 government representatives selected by the
group keeping regional spread in mind. But there will no doubt be other
formulas proposed.)
* A phased approach to its work, e.g:
- finalise work procedures etc. by 31 July 2011 (ncluding a schedule of
meetings)
- reassess and cluster all input from stakeholders by 31 August 2011
- make use of the Nairobi IGF in September 2011 to have a face to face
meeting as a group, and also gather feedback from IGF stakeholders in an
open platform
- have meeting focused on IGF improvements with the MAG during the
November 2011 open consultation
- have a consultation with the UNGIS group in November 2011
- have a consultation with developing country representatives in Geneva
also in November 2011 (as their participation is a key goal of IGF
improvements)
- compile a draft report by the end of December 2011
- gather feedback on the report during January and February 2012
- finalise the report by the end of March 2012

3. With regard to the composition of the MAG I have a particular
proposal which is that along with 5 CS, 5 business, 5 technical
community, a new cluster of 5 is added for the academic and research
community.

I think this is more likely to succeed that asking for more CS
representatives than the other stakeholder groups have.

However, this still needs further discussion in this space. I have run
it by several people, some like it, but some have concerns which they
can share here.

Any other suggestions?

Anriette






On 22/05/11 11:48, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Hello Wolfgang and all,
> 
> Anriette has been working on a statetement from CS supporting the
> continuation of the CSTD WG. IGF improvements and WSIS review will be
> discussed on Tuesday, so we should have news after that. CS is having an
> informal dinner with representatives from the technical community and
> the business sector on Monday night to chat about CSTD. I am really
> happy that we will have the opportunity to do it.
> 
> So far, as long as we know, the only one to support extintion of the WG
> is the United States. They sent a letter to CSTD saying that. You can
> access it here:http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/ (on the right side)
> 
> The members of CSTD bureau will meet tomorrow morning, before the
> conference, to talk about proposals of resolutions. Europe will be
> proposing one resolution about IGF improvement, but we dont know its
> exact content. I heard their goal is not to let discussions in WG go
> completely to waste. Europe has been supportive, and they (Hungary)
> backed me up when I complained about lack of executive coordinator and
> chair for the IGF process, during WSIS tacking stocks session.
> 
> I will be in the meeting, but not exactly as CS representative, because
> my organization does not have ECOSOC status. I will be there invited by
> the Brazilian delegation, so I am not sure about my possibility to
> intervene. But Anriette will be there as APC, Katitza will be observing
> as EFF and we heard Parminder will be here as well, but not sure.
> 
> Best,
> Marília
> 
> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org
> <mailto:katitza at eff.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Wolfgang:
> 
>     I am not familiar with the UNCSTD meeting. Anriette and Marilia are
>     our representative there.
> 
>     Katitza
> 
> 
>     On 5/22/11 9:15 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> 
>         Thanks Katitza,
> 
>         any information about outcomes from the MAG meeting?  And who
>         nis going to monitor (or make a statement) in the forthcoming
>         UNCSTD meeting?
> 
>         wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
>         ________________________________
> 
>         Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> im Auftrag von Katitza Rodriguez
>         Gesendet: Sa 21.05.2011 19 <tel:21.05.2011%2019>:01
>         An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Katitza Rodriguez
>         Betreff: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva
> 
> 
> 
>         Hi there,
> 
>         I want to let you know that civil society members in Geneva worked
>         extremely hard during the open consultation and the open MAG
>         meeting.
>         Those identify with civil society were: APC Anriette Esterhuysen
>         and Joy
>         Liddicoat, Marilia Maciel, Adam Peake, and Bill Drake. Please
>         apologize
>         me if I forgot of anyone else.
> 
>         All the best,
> 
>         Katitza
> 
> 
>         On 5/21/11 6:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> 
>             Dear IGC members (plus other stakeholders in this list):
> 
>             I want to inform civil society IGC members that only four civil
>             society MAG members were able to attend the last Open
>             Consultation and
>             MAG meeting. The civil society MAG members were: Valeria
>             Betancourt,
>             Fouad Bawja, Graciela Selaimen, and myself.
> 
>             It is important to understand that four civil society MAG
>             members are
>             not enough to allow civil society to effectively monitor and
>             shape
>             "all" the main sessions for the next IGF. During the OC, we have
>             requested the IGF Secretariat to provide us with a better
>             understanding of the current list of civil society MAG
>             members, and
>             the need to fill out those civil society slots in the MAG so
>             we can
>             keep the balance between all stakeholders.
> 
>             In this MAG meeting, we were able to cover between 3-4
>             sessions. In
>             the next days to come, we will be monitoring the other
>             sessions (which
>             will not be able to monitor in-situ) to make sure civil
>             society voice
>             is included. As a MAG member, my main concern is the SOP
>             session. If
>             you want to send me a "private message" about the issues
>             that you
>             consider should be discussed, please do so by sending an
>             email to
>             katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org> Our main input for
>             discussion is the February Open
>             Consultation where many of you (and other stakeholders) provided
>             valuable comments, and we will work hard to ensure that those
>             suggestions are included.
> 
>             I also would like to call attention to the fact that this
>             list is open
>             to other stakeholders including public authorities, government
>             officials, technical community, and business sector
>             representatives.
>             Therefore, members need to understand that MAG members have
>             a very
>             difficult task to share strategies in a public list. Any public
>             strategy that we can share here, can always harm our collective
>             efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy in advance
>             is a big
>             problem and can harm our work.
> 
>             I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for
>             IGC-only
>             members that is close to their members. In that way, civil
>             society MAG
>             members will be able to provide a better report after the
>             meeting.
> 
>             All the best, Katitza
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>             ____________________________________________________________
>             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
> 
> 
>         --
>         Katitza Rodriguez
>         International Rights Director
>         Electronic Frontier Foundation
>         katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>         katitza at datos-personales.org
>         <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org> (personal email)
> 
>         Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>         freedom of speech since 1990
> 
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>              governance at lists.cpsr.org <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
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Katitza Rodriguez
>     International Rights Director
>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>     katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>     katitza at datos-personales.org <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org>
>     (personal email)
> 
>     Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>     freedom of speech since 1990
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>        governance at lists.cpsr.org <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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
> 
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue May 24 04:44:47 2011
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 18:44:47 +1000
Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <CA00FEFD.21178%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <CA01AD1F.19171%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

There is a live stream and full program for e-G8 here

http://www.facebook.com/EG8Forum

Also twitter #eg8







> From: Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr>
> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 06:21:49 +0200
> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I have been waiting official confirmation until the last minute ... And it
> seems I will be able to attend the e-G8 forum. I should make it clear that
> it is not upon the invitation of the French government ...
> 
> In any case, considering the situation and the programme, I am not sure
> there will be opportunities to speak much, but I will try to do some
> reporting back on major exchanges...
> 
> Best
> Divina 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 24 04:53:58 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:23:58 +0530 (IST)
Subject: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
In-Reply-To: <4DDB5BE2.60102@apc.org>
References: <4DDB5BE2.60102@apc.org>
Message-ID: <07995c77db3a001aca066134f7d6e591.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>


The general outlines of the statement look good. However, some comments
inline.

> Dear all
>
> I have not had time to draft a statement on the working group on IGF
> improvements but I have discussed the matter with lots of people and
> this morning, on the panel dedicated to this, I thought of making the
> following points.  I will check in with Parminder and Marilia first, but
> based on what we have been discussing the key points are:
>
> 1. It is important for the working group to continue / have its mandate
> extended:
> * The IGF needs to address some key weaknesses if it is to be a
> meaningful forum for dialogue on global internet policy among different
> stakeholders.
> * There are enough good proposals for IGF improvements on the table. The
> working group has received sufficient input from stakeholders,
> complemented by proposals made by members of the working group.
> What it did not complete was synthesising proposed changes, and reaching
> agreement on such changes.
> * Inspite of some disagreement, there was also substantial common
> ground, e.g. on the importance of the IGF and its fundamental character
> as a forum for dialogue

and policy inputs


> as opposed to a policy negotiating forum.
>
> 2. Continuation should be linked to a clear decisions on the work
> procedures and work schedule/timeline of the working group. In particular:
>
> * Assigning a chair and a co-chair.
> * Assistance from the secretariat (who, how, what)
> * Convening a small drafting group with representatives of all
> stakeholders (I would propose one person per non-governmental
> stakeholder group = 3 + 5 government representatives selected by the
> group keeping regional spread in mind. But there will no doubt be other
> formulas proposed.)
> * A phased approach to its work, e.g:
> - finalise work procedures etc. by 31 July 2011 (ncluding a schedule of
> meetings)
> - reassess and cluster all input from stakeholders by 31 August 2011
> - make use of the Nairobi IGF in September 2011 to have a face to face
> meeting as a group, and also gather feedback from IGF stakeholders in an
> open platform
> - have meeting focused on IGF improvements with the MAG during the
> November 2011 open consultation
> - have a consultation with the UNGIS group in November 2011
> - have a consultation with developing country representatives in Geneva
> also in November 2011 (as their participation is a key goal of IGF
> improvements)
> - compile a draft report by the end of December 2011
> - gather feedback on the report during January and February 2012
> - finalise the report by the end of March 2012

no particular objection to the timelines as much, but the schedule appears
to be too extended, and I am not sure such a long processes is needed.

>
> 3. With regard to the composition of the MAG I have a particular
> proposal which is that along with 5 CS, 5 business, 5 technical
> community, a new cluster of 5 is added for the academic and research
> community.

As discussed with you yesterday, I prefer 'interest representation' as the
basis of legitimacy to be nominated to the MAG rather than expertise
(which is implied within 'interest representation'). Asking for a new
academic community category does not go with this principle i consider as
very important. It also undermines the overall political claims of civil
society in governance, because expertise based presence is obviously
acceptable only as an input and in advisory capacity, and not in actual
political negotiations that lead to political decisions, which is what
policy decisions finally are.

Also, importantly, there is already the 'technical and academic community'
as a group which was supposed to nominate members from both sub groups...
I think these two groups belong together to the extent that there
contribution is primarily 'expertise based'.

On the other hand individual members of these communities can and will be
part of 'interest based representation' in civil society, private sector
and also governments.


>
> I think this is more likely to succeed that asking for more CS
> representatives than the other stakeholder groups have.
>
> However, this still needs further discussion in this space. I have run
> it by several people, some like it, but some have concerns which they
> can share here.
>
> Any other suggestions?
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 22/05/11 11:48, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>> Hello Wolfgang and all,
>>
>> Anriette has been working on a statetement from CS supporting the
>> continuation of the CSTD WG. IGF improvements and WSIS review will be
>> discussed on Tuesday, so we should have news after that. CS is having an
>> informal dinner with representatives from the technical community and
>> the business sector on Monday night to chat about CSTD. I am really
>> happy that we will have the opportunity to do it.
>>
>> So far, as long as we know, the only one to support extintion of the WG
>> is the United States. They sent a letter to CSTD saying that. You can
>> access it here:http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/ (on the right side)
>>
>> The members of CSTD bureau will meet tomorrow morning, before the
>> conference, to talk about proposals of resolutions. Europe will be
>> proposing one resolution about IGF improvement, but we dont know its
>> exact content. I heard their goal is not to let discussions in WG go
>> completely to waste. Europe has been supportive, and they (Hungary)
>> backed me up when I complained about lack of executive coordinator and
>> chair for the IGF process, during WSIS tacking stocks session.
>>
>> I will be in the meeting, but not exactly as CS representative, because
>> my organization does not have ECOSOC status. I will be there invited by
>> the Brazilian delegation, so I am not sure about my possibility to
>> intervene. But Anriette will be there as APC, Katitza will be observing
>> as EFF and we heard Parminder will be here as well, but not sure.
>>
>> Best,
>> Marília
>>
>> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org
>> <mailto:katitza at eff.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Wolfgang:
>>
>>     I am not familiar with the UNCSTD meeting. Anriette and Marilia are
>>     our representative there.
>>
>>     Katitza
>>
>>
>>     On 5/22/11 9:15 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>
>>         Thanks Katitza,
>>
>>         any information about outcomes from the MAG meeting?  And who
>>         nis going to monitor (or make a statement) in the forthcoming
>>         UNCSTD meeting?
>>
>>         wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>>         ________________________________
>>
>>         Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>         <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> im Auftrag von Katitza
>> Rodriguez
>>         Gesendet: Sa 21.05.2011 19 <tel:21.05.2011%2019>:01
>>         An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>         <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Katitza Rodriguez
>>         Betreff: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva
>>
>>
>>
>>         Hi there,
>>
>>         I want to let you know that civil society members in Geneva
>> worked
>>         extremely hard during the open consultation and the open MAG
>>         meeting.
>>         Those identify with civil society were: APC Anriette Esterhuysen
>>         and Joy
>>         Liddicoat, Marilia Maciel, Adam Peake, and Bill Drake. Please
>>         apologize
>>         me if I forgot of anyone else.
>>
>>         All the best,
>>
>>         Katitza
>>
>>
>>         On 5/21/11 6:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>>             Dear IGC members (plus other stakeholders in this list):
>>
>>             I want to inform civil society IGC members that only four
>> civil
>>             society MAG members were able to attend the last Open
>>             Consultation and
>>             MAG meeting. The civil society MAG members were: Valeria
>>             Betancourt,
>>             Fouad Bawja, Graciela Selaimen, and myself.
>>
>>             It is important to understand that four civil society MAG
>>             members are
>>             not enough to allow civil society to effectively monitor and
>>             shape
>>             "all" the main sessions for the next IGF. During the OC, we
>> have
>>             requested the IGF Secretariat to provide us with a better
>>             understanding of the current list of civil society MAG
>>             members, and
>>             the need to fill out those civil society slots in the MAG so
>>             we can
>>             keep the balance between all stakeholders.
>>
>>             In this MAG meeting, we were able to cover between 3-4
>>             sessions. In
>>             the next days to come, we will be monitoring the other
>>             sessions (which
>>             will not be able to monitor in-situ) to make sure civil
>>             society voice
>>             is included. As a MAG member, my main concern is the SOP
>>             session. If
>>             you want to send me a "private message" about the issues
>>             that you
>>             consider should be discussed, please do so by sending an
>>             email to
>>             katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org> Our main input for
>>             discussion is the February Open
>>             Consultation where many of you (and other stakeholders)
>> provided
>>             valuable comments, and we will work hard to ensure that
>> those
>>             suggestions are included.
>>
>>             I also would like to call attention to the fact that this
>>             list is open
>>             to other stakeholders including public authorities,
>> government
>>             officials, technical community, and business sector
>>             representatives.
>>             Therefore, members need to understand that MAG members have
>>             a very
>>             difficult task to share strategies in a public list. Any
>> public
>>             strategy that we can share here, can always harm our
>> collective
>>             efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy in advance
>>             is a big
>>             problem and can harm our work.
>>
>>             I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for
>>             IGC-only
>>             members that is close to their members. In that way, civil
>>             society MAG
>>             members will be able to provide a better report after the
>>             meeting.
>>
>>             All the best, Katitza
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>             ____________________________________________________________
>>             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
>>
>>
>>         --
>>         Katitza Rodriguez
>>         International Rights Director
>>         Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>         katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>>         katitza at datos-personales.org
>>         <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org> (personal email)
>>
>>         Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>>         freedom of speech since 1990
>>
>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>              governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> <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
>>
>>
>>
>>     --
>>     Katitza Rodriguez
>>     International Rights Director
>>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>     katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>>     katitza at datos-personales.org <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org>
>>     (personal email)
>>
>>     Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>>     freedom of speech since 1990
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>        governance at lists.cpsr.org <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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


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

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue May 24 05:46:40 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 16:46:40 +0700
Subject: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
In-Reply-To: <07995c77db3a001aca066134f7d6e591.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <8A6445F78AD74D58A7D84F1F0C07C1A1@userPC>

I agree with Parminder in his discussion of the possibility of separate
"academic representation" on the MAG. 

The appropriate role of academics in this context is either as expert
advisers (in specific areas) to the MAG or as representing the
academic/research role as contributing technically to the development of the
Internet. Otherwise as Parminder says, academics will, depending on their
interests and persuasions be contributors to various of the other
representative groups as for example this one.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of parminder at itforchange.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:54 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen
Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011



The general outlines of the statement look good. However, some comments
inline.

> Dear all
>
> I have not had time to draft a statement on the working group on IGF 
> improvements but I have discussed the matter with lots of people and 
> this morning, on the panel dedicated to this, I thought of making the 
> following points.  I will check in with Parminder and Marilia first, 
> but based on what we have been discussing the key points are:
>
> 1. It is important for the working group to continue / have its 
> mandate
> extended:
> * The IGF needs to address some key weaknesses if it is to be a
> meaningful forum for dialogue on global internet policy among different
> stakeholders.
> * There are enough good proposals for IGF improvements on the table. The
> working group has received sufficient input from stakeholders,
> complemented by proposals made by members of the working group.
> What it did not complete was synthesising proposed changes, and reaching
> agreement on such changes.
> * Inspite of some disagreement, there was also substantial common
> ground, e.g. on the importance of the IGF and its fundamental character
> as a forum for dialogue

and policy inputs


> as opposed to a policy negotiating forum.
>
> 2. Continuation should be linked to a clear decisions on the work 
> procedures and work schedule/timeline of the working group. In 
> particular:
>
> * Assigning a chair and a co-chair.
> * Assistance from the secretariat (who, how, what)
> * Convening a small drafting group with representatives of all 
> stakeholders (I would propose one person per non-governmental 
> stakeholder group = 3 + 5 government representatives selected by the 
> group keeping regional spread in mind. But there will no doubt be 
> other formulas proposed.)
> * A phased approach to its work, e.g:
> - finalise work procedures etc. by 31 July 2011 (ncluding a schedule 
> of
> meetings)
> - reassess and cluster all input from stakeholders by 31 August 2011
> - make use of the Nairobi IGF in September 2011 to have a face to face
> meeting as a group, and also gather feedback from IGF stakeholders in an
> open platform
> - have meeting focused on IGF improvements with the MAG during the
> November 2011 open consultation
> - have a consultation with the UNGIS group in November 2011
> - have a consultation with developing country representatives in Geneva
> also in November 2011 (as their participation is a key goal of IGF
> improvements)
> - compile a draft report by the end of December 2011
> - gather feedback on the report during January and February 2012
> - finalise the report by the end of March 2012

no particular objection to the timelines as much, but the schedule appears
to be too extended, and I am not sure such a long processes is needed.

>
> 3. With regard to the composition of the MAG I have a particular 
> proposal which is that along with 5 CS, 5 business, 5 technical 
> community, a new cluster of 5 is added for the academic and research 
> community.

As discussed with you yesterday, I prefer 'interest representation' as the
basis of legitimacy to be nominated to the MAG rather than expertise (which
is implied within 'interest representation'). Asking for a new academic
community category does not go with this principle i consider as very
important. It also undermines the overall political claims of civil society
in governance, because expertise based presence is obviously acceptable only
as an input and in advisory capacity, and not in actual political
negotiations that lead to political decisions, which is what policy
decisions finally are.

Also, importantly, there is already the 'technical and academic community'
as a group which was supposed to nominate members from both sub groups... I
think these two groups belong together to the extent that there contribution
is primarily 'expertise based'.

On the other hand individual members of these communities can and will be
part of 'interest based representation' in civil society, private sector and
also governments.


>
> I think this is more likely to succeed that asking for more CS 
> representatives than the other stakeholder groups have.
>
> However, this still needs further discussion in this space. I have run 
> it by several people, some like it, but some have concerns which they 
> can share here.
>
> Any other suggestions?
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 22/05/11 11:48, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>> Hello Wolfgang and all,
>>
>> Anriette has been working on a statetement from CS supporting the 
>> continuation of the CSTD WG. IGF improvements and WSIS review will be 
>> discussed on Tuesday, so we should have news after that. CS is having 
>> an informal dinner with representatives from the technical community 
>> and the business sector on Monday night to chat about CSTD. I am 
>> really happy that we will have the opportunity to do it.
>>
>> So far, as long as we know, the only one to support extintion of the 
>> WG is the United States. They sent a letter to CSTD saying that. You 
>> can access it here:http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/ (on the right 
>> side)
>>
>> The members of CSTD bureau will meet tomorrow morning, before the 
>> conference, to talk about proposals of resolutions. Europe will be 
>> proposing one resolution about IGF improvement, but we dont know its 
>> exact content. I heard their goal is not to let discussions in WG go 
>> completely to waste. Europe has been supportive, and they (Hungary) 
>> backed me up when I complained about lack of executive coordinator 
>> and chair for the IGF process, during WSIS tacking stocks session.
>>
>> I will be in the meeting, but not exactly as CS representative, 
>> because my organization does not have ECOSOC status. I will be there 
>> invited by the Brazilian delegation, so I am not sure about my 
>> possibility to intervene. But Anriette will be there as APC, Katitza 
>> will be observing as EFF and we heard Parminder will be here as well, 
>> but not sure.
>>
>> Best,
>> Marília
>>
>> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org 
>> <mailto:katitza at eff.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Wolfgang:
>>
>>     I am not familiar with the UNCSTD meeting. Anriette and Marilia are
>>     our representative there.
>>
>>     Katitza
>>
>>
>>     On 5/22/11 9:15 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>
>>         Thanks Katitza,
>>
>>         any information about outcomes from the MAG meeting?  And who
>>         nis going to monitor (or make a statement) in the forthcoming
>>         UNCSTD meeting?
>>
>>         wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>>         ________________________________
>>
>>         Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>         <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> im Auftrag von Katitza 
>> Rodriguez
>>         Gesendet: Sa 21.05.2011 19 <tel:21.05.2011%2019>:01
>>         An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>         <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Katitza Rodriguez
>>         Betreff: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva
>>
>>
>>
>>         Hi there,
>>
>>         I want to let you know that civil society members in Geneva 
>> worked
>>         extremely hard during the open consultation and the open MAG
>>         meeting.
>>         Those identify with civil society were: APC Anriette Esterhuysen
>>         and Joy
>>         Liddicoat, Marilia Maciel, Adam Peake, and Bill Drake. Please
>>         apologize
>>         me if I forgot of anyone else.
>>
>>         All the best,
>>
>>         Katitza
>>
>>
>>         On 5/21/11 6:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>>             Dear IGC members (plus other stakeholders in this list):
>>
>>             I want to inform civil society IGC members that only four 
>> civil
>>             society MAG members were able to attend the last Open
>>             Consultation and
>>             MAG meeting. The civil society MAG members were: Valeria
>>             Betancourt,
>>             Fouad Bawja, Graciela Selaimen, and myself.
>>
>>             It is important to understand that four civil society MAG
>>             members are
>>             not enough to allow civil society to effectively monitor and
>>             shape
>>             "all" the main sessions for the next IGF. During the OC, 
>> we have
>>             requested the IGF Secretariat to provide us with a better
>>             understanding of the current list of civil society MAG
>>             members, and
>>             the need to fill out those civil society slots in the MAG so
>>             we can
>>             keep the balance between all stakeholders.
>>
>>             In this MAG meeting, we were able to cover between 3-4
>>             sessions. In
>>             the next days to come, we will be monitoring the other
>>             sessions (which
>>             will not be able to monitor in-situ) to make sure civil
>>             society voice
>>             is included. As a MAG member, my main concern is the SOP
>>             session. If
>>             you want to send me a "private message" about the issues
>>             that you
>>             consider should be discussed, please do so by sending an
>>             email to
>>             katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org> Our main input for
>>             discussion is the February Open
>>             Consultation where many of you (and other stakeholders) 
>> provided
>>             valuable comments, and we will work hard to ensure that 
>> those
>>             suggestions are included.
>>
>>             I also would like to call attention to the fact that this
>>             list is open
>>             to other stakeholders including public authorities, 
>> government
>>             officials, technical community, and business sector
>>             representatives.
>>             Therefore, members need to understand that MAG members have
>>             a very
>>             difficult task to share strategies in a public list. Any 
>> public
>>             strategy that we can share here, can always harm our 
>> collective
>>             efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy in advance
>>             is a big
>>             problem and can harm our work.
>>
>>             I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for
>>             IGC-only
>>             members that is close to their members. In that way, civil
>>             society MAG
>>             members will be able to provide a better report after the
>>             meeting.
>>
>>             All the best, Katitza
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>             ____________________________________________________________
>>             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
>>
>>
>>         --
>>         Katitza Rodriguez
>>         International Rights Director
>>         Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>         katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>>         katitza at datos-personales.org
>>         <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org> (personal email)
>>
>>         Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>>         freedom of speech since 1990
>>
>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>              governance at lists.cpsr.org 
>> <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
>>
>>
>>
>>     --
>>     Katitza Rodriguez
>>     International Rights Director
>>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>     katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>>     katitza at datos-personales.org <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org>
>>     (personal email)
>>
>>     Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>>     freedom of speech since 1990
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>        governance at lists.cpsr.org <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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications 
> www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


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

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

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

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 24 06:05:16 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 19:05:16 +0900
Subject: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
In-Reply-To: <4DDB5BE2.60102@apc.org>
References: <4DDB5BE2.60102@apc.org>
Message-ID: <p06240818ca012b9467f4@[192.168.1.160]>

Anriette, thank you.  Very practical.

Just a couple of comments.  Section 1.  Extending 
the mandate of the CSTD working group.  Perhaps a 
first step is to gain agreement on what that 
mandate includes and does not, the WG's scope. 
Does the initial questionnaire, attached, 
essentially define the WG's scope?  It seems to. 
Insisting on discussing issues that some feel out 
of scope will only lead to disagreement later, 
waste time.  Get the impression some of the 
problems of the first phase came from the chair 
not controlling the discussion better.

Might be worth remembering that for the first 
five IGF meetings the process was often described 
as an experiment, different things were tried, 
wasn't always expected that they'd be 100% right. 
IGF's a new process so best to accept a measure 
of experimentation.  This acceptance of 
experimentation could be helpful when thinking 
about the first three issues in the questionnaire 
(if the questionnaire's relevant as I think...)

You might suggest that when the WG is then unable 
to reach consensus it follow the precedent of 
WGIG and propose options.

Section 2.  I don't understand the reasoning 
behind the timeline, isn't a report required 
before March 2012?  (when will ECOSOC/GA need to 
think about the IGF again?)  But the items make 
sense.  Except perhaps involving the MAG which 
unless formally renewed and repopulated (Catch 
22?) isn't really in a state to be a partner in a 
consultation.

Section 3.  Proposed new MAG structure is 
pragmatic.  It would help to rebalance the 
membership without taking away from any other 
stakeholder (which won't happen, no one gives up 
seats in such situations.)

Best,

Adam



>Dear all
>
>I have not had time to draft a statement on the working group on IGF
>improvements but I have discussed the matter with lots of people and
>this morning, on the panel dedicated to this, I thought of making the
>following points.  I will check in with Parminder and Marilia first, but
>based on what we have been discussing the key points are:
>
>1. It is important for the working group to continue / have its mandate
>extended:
>* The IGF needs to address some key weaknesses if it is to be a
>meaningful forum for dialogue on global internet policy among different
>stakeholders.
>* There are enough good proposals for IGF improvements on the table. The
>working group has received sufficient input from stakeholders,
>complemented by proposals made by members of the working group.
>What it did not complete was synthesising proposed changes, and reaching
>agreement on such changes.
>* Inspite of some disagreement, there was also substantial common
>ground, e.g. on the importance of the IGF and its fundamental character
>as a forum for dialogue as opposed to a policy negotiating forum.
>
>2. Continuation should be linked to a clear decisions on the work
>procedures and work schedule/timeline of the working group. In particular:
>
>* Assigning a chair and a co-chair.
>* Assistance from the secretariat (who, how, what)
>* Convening a small drafting group with representatives of all
>stakeholders (I would propose one person per non-governmental
>stakeholder group = 3 + 5 government representatives selected by the
>group keeping regional spread in mind. But there will no doubt be other
>formulas proposed.)
>* A phased approach to its work, e.g:
>- finalise work procedures etc. by 31 July 2011 (ncluding a schedule of
>meetings)
>- reassess and cluster all input from stakeholders by 31 August 2011
>- make use of the Nairobi IGF in September 2011 to have a face to face
>meeting as a group, and also gather feedback from IGF stakeholders in an
>open platform
>- have meeting focused on IGF improvements with the MAG during the
>November 2011 open consultation
>- have a consultation with the UNGIS group in November 2011
>- have a consultation with developing country representatives in Geneva
>also in November 2011 (as their participation is a key goal of IGF
>improvements)
>- compile a draft report by the end of December 2011
>- gather feedback on the report during January and February 2012
>- finalise the report by the end of March 2012
>
>3. With regard to the composition of the MAG I have a particular
>proposal which is that along with 5 CS, 5 business, 5 technical
>community, a new cluster of 5 is added for the academic and research
>community.
>
>I think this is more likely to succeed that asking for more CS
>representatives than the other stakeholder groups have.
>
>However, this still needs further discussion in this space. I have run
>it by several people, some like it, but some have concerns which they
>can share here.
>
>Any other suggestions?
>
>Anriette
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 22/05/11 11:48, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>  Hello Wolfgang and all,
>>
>>  Anriette has been working on a statetement from CS supporting the
>>  continuation of the CSTD WG. IGF improvements and WSIS review will be
>>  discussed on Tuesday, so we should have news after that. CS is having an
>>  informal dinner with representatives from the technical community and
>>  the business sector on Monday night to chat about CSTD. I am really
>>  happy that we will have the opportunity to do it.
>>
>>  So far, as long as we know, the only one to support extintion of the WG
>>  is the United States. They sent a letter to CSTD saying that. You can
>>  access it here:http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/ (on the right side)
>>
>>  The members of CSTD bureau will meet tomorrow morning, before the
>>  conference, to talk about proposals of resolutions. Europe will be
>>  proposing one resolution about IGF improvement, but we dont know its
>>  exact content. I heard their goal is not to let discussions in WG go
>>  completely to waste. Europe has been supportive, and they (Hungary)
>>  backed me up when I complained about lack of executive coordinator and
>>  chair for the IGF process, during WSIS tacking stocks session.
>>
>>  I will be in the meeting, but not exactly as CS representative, because
>>  my organization does not have ECOSOC status. I will be there invited by
>>  the Brazilian delegation, so I am not sure about my possibility to
>>  intervene. But Anriette will be there as APC, Katitza will be observing
>>  as EFF and we heard Parminder will be here as well, but not sure.
>>
>>  Best,
>>  Marília
>>
>>  On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org
>>  <mailto:katitza at eff.org>> wrote:
>>
>>      Hi Wolfgang:
>>
>>      I am not familiar with the UNCSTD meeting. Anriette and Marilia are
>>      our representative there.
>>
>>      Katitza
>>
>>
>>      On 5/22/11 9:15 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>
>>          Thanks Katitza,
>>
>>          any information about outcomes from the MAG meeting?  And who
>>          nis going to monitor (or make a statement) in the forthcoming
>>          UNCSTD meeting?
>>
>>          wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>>          ________________________________
>>
>>          Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>          <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> im Auftrag von Katitza Rodriguez
>>          Gesendet: Sa 21.05.2011 19 <tel:21.05.2011%2019>:01
>>          An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>          <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Katitza Rodriguez
>>          Betreff: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva
>>
>>
>>
>>          Hi there,
>>
>>          I want to let you know that civil society members in Geneva worked
>>          extremely hard during the open consultation and the open MAG
>>          meeting.
>>          Those identify with civil society were: APC Anriette Esterhuysen
>>          and Joy
>>          Liddicoat, Marilia Maciel, Adam Peake, and Bill Drake. Please
>>          apologize
>>          me if I forgot of anyone else.
>>
>>          All the best,
>>
>>          Katitza
>>
>>
>>          On 5/21/11 6:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>>              Dear IGC members (plus other stakeholders in this list):
>>
>>              I want to inform civil society IGC members that only four civil
>>              society MAG members were able to attend the last Open
>>              Consultation and
>>              MAG meeting. The civil society MAG members were: Valeria
>>              Betancourt,
>>              Fouad Bawja, Graciela Selaimen, and myself.
>  >
>>              It is important to understand that four civil society MAG
>>              members are
>>              not enough to allow civil society to effectively monitor and
>>              shape
>>              "all" the main sessions for the next IGF. During the OC, we have
>>              requested the IGF Secretariat to provide us with a better
>>              understanding of the current list of civil society MAG
>>              members, and
>>              the need to fill out those civil society slots in the MAG so
>>              we can
>>              keep the balance between all stakeholders.
>>
>>              In this MAG meeting, we were able to cover between 3-4
>>              sessions. In
>>              the next days to come, we will be monitoring the other
>>              sessions (which
>>              will not be able to monitor in-situ) to make sure civil
>>              society voice
>>              is included. As a MAG member, my main concern is the SOP
>>              session. If
>>              you want to send me a "private message" about the issues
>>              that you
>>              consider should be discussed, please do so by sending an
>>              email to
>>              katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org> Our main input for
>>              discussion is the February Open
>>              Consultation where many of you (and other stakeholders) provided
>>              valuable comments, and we will work hard to ensure that those
>>              suggestions are included.
>>
>>              I also would like to call attention to the fact that this
>>              list is open
>>              to other stakeholders including public authorities, government
>>              officials, technical community, and business sector
>>              representatives.
>>              Therefore, members need to understand that MAG members have
>>              a very
>>              difficult task to share strategies in a public list. Any public
>>              strategy that we can share here, can always harm our collective
>>              efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy in advance
>>              is a big
>>              problem and can harm our work.
>>
>>              I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for
>>              IGC-only
>>              members that is close to their members. In that way, civil
>>              society MAG
>>              members will be able to provide a better report after the
>>              meeting.
>>
>>              All the best, Katitza
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>              ____________________________________________________________
>>              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
>>
>>
>>          --
>>          Katitza Rodriguez
>>          International Rights Director
>>          Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>          katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>>          katitza at datos-personales.org
>>          <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org> (personal email)
>>
>>          Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>>          freedom of speech since 1990
>>
>>          ____________________________________________________________
>>          You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>               governance at lists.cpsr.org <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
>>
>>
>>
>>      --
>>      Katitza Rodriguez
>>      International Rights Director
>>      Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>      katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>>      katitza at datos-personales.org <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org>
>>      (personal email)
>>
>>      Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>>      freedom of speech since 1990
>>
>>      ____________________________________________________________
>>      You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>         governance at lists.cpsr.org <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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>  Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>>  FGV Direito Rio
>>
>>  Center for Technology and Society
>>  Getulio Vargas Foundation
>>  Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------
>anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>executive director, association for progressive communications
>www.apc.org
>po box 29755, melville 2109
>south africa
>tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To 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: WGIGF_Questionnaire_first_meeting.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6712 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110524/8a4c5aaf/attachment.obj>

From katitza at eff.org  Tue May 24 06:23:23 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 12:23:23 +0200
Subject: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
In-Reply-To: <p06240818ca012b9467f4@[192.168.1.160]>
References: <4DDB5BE2.60102@apc.org> <p06240818ca012b9467f4@[192.168.1.160]>
Message-ID: <4DDB871B.3080908@eff.org>

Dear Adam,

On 5/24/11 12:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> Section 2.  I don't understand the reasoning behind the timeline, 
> isn't a report required before March 2012?  (when will ECOSOC/GA need 
> to think about the IGF again?)  But the items make sense.  Except 
> perhaps involving the MAG which unless formally renewed and 
> repopulated (Catch 22?) isn't really in a state to be a partner in a 
> consultation. 
Can you elaborate your point re: MAG? MAG is not repopulated, either? 
Are they?

-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 24 07:18:19 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 20:18:19 +0900
Subject: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
In-Reply-To: <4DDB871B.3080908@eff.org>
References: <4DDB5BE2.60102@apc.org>
 <p06240818ca012b9467f4@[192.168.1.160]> <4DDB871B.3080908@eff.org>
Message-ID: <p0624081bca013f25fdfc@[192.168.1.160]>

>Dear Adam,
>
>On 5/24/11 12:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>Section 2.  I don't understand the reasoning behind the timeline, 
>>isn't a report required before March 2012?  (when will ECOSOC/GA 
>>need to think about the IGF again?)  But the items make sense. 
>>Except perhaps involving the MAG which unless formally renewed and 
>>repopulated (Catch 22?) isn't really in a state to be a partner in 
>>a consultation.
>Can you elaborate your point re: MAG? MAG is not repopulated, 
>either? Are they?


Katitza, hi.

Just to be clear, I was referring to Anriette's email and suggestion 
that the CSTD working group on IGF improvements:

At 9:18 AM +0200 5/24/11, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>- have meeting focused on IGF improvements with the MAG during the
>November 2011 open consultation


You mentioned there had been a letter from Mr. Sha, "extending an 
invitation to all present MAG members to continue their work until 
the conclusion of the 2011 IGF meeting in Nairobi."  But it doesn't 
seem extend the MAG's function beyond Nairobi, which is September. 
And Mr Sha hasn't replaced members who have left, quite a number from 
civil society. Even if there was a MAG in November, it would probably 
be lacking in civil society members so you guys remaining would be at 
a disadvantage (again) in discussions.

Best,

Adam





>--
>Katitza Rodriguez
>International Rights Director
>Electronic Frontier Foundation
>katitza at eff.org
>katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
>Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and 
>freedom of speech since 1990
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 24 08:16:18 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 21:16:18 +0900
Subject: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
In-Reply-To: <8A6445F78AD74D58A7D84F1F0C07C1A1@userPC>
References: <8A6445F78AD74D58A7D84F1F0C07C1A1@userPC>
Message-ID: <p06240823ca015027fa53@[192.168.1.160]>

>I agree with Parminder in his discussion of the possibility of separate
>"academic representation" on the MAG.
>
>The appropriate role of academics in this context is either as expert
>advisers (in specific areas) to the MAG or as representing the
>academic/research role as contributing technically to the development of the
>Internet.


Who made that rule :-)

Seriously, why are academics excluded?  There's a 
very active and growing network of academics 
involved in IGF issues.  Summer schools growing, 
GigaNet holding meetings with IGFs and 
separately, Diplo's work.

More important is the practicality of Anriette's 
proposal.  It adds what would likely be CS 
(leaning) voices, without taking seats away from 
incumbents.  It might work.  Probably not ideal, 
but likely much better than the situation we've 
found ourselves in.

Adam



>  Otherwise as Parminder says, academics will, depending on their
>interests and persuasions be contributors to various of the other
>representative groups as for example this one.
>
>M
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
>Of parminder at itforchange.net
>Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:54 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen
>Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
>
>
>
>The general outlines of the statement look good. However, some comments
>inline.
>
>>  Dear all
>>
>>  I have not had time to draft a statement on the working group on IGF
>>  improvements but I have discussed the matter with lots of people and
>>  this morning, on the panel dedicated to this, I thought of making the
>>  following points.  I will check in with Parminder and Marilia first,
>>  but based on what we have been discussing the key points are:
>>
>>  1. It is important for the working group to continue / have its
>>  mandate
>>  extended:
>>  * The IGF needs to address some key weaknesses if it is to be a
>>  meaningful forum for dialogue on global internet policy among different
>>  stakeholders.
>>  * There are enough good proposals for IGF improvements on the table. The
>>  working group has received sufficient input from stakeholders,
>>  complemented by proposals made by members of the working group.
>>  What it did not complete was synthesising proposed changes, and reaching
>>  agreement on such changes.
>>  * Inspite of some disagreement, there was also substantial common
>>  ground, e.g. on the importance of the IGF and its fundamental character
>>  as a forum for dialogue
>
>and policy inputs
>
>
>>  as opposed to a policy negotiating forum.
>>
>>  2. Continuation should be linked to a clear decisions on the work
>>  procedures and work schedule/timeline of the working group. In
>>  particular:
>>
>>  * Assigning a chair and a co-chair.
>>  * Assistance from the secretariat (who, how, what)
>>  * Convening a small drafting group with representatives of all
>>  stakeholders (I would propose one person per non-governmental
>>  stakeholder group = 3 + 5 government representatives selected by the
>>  group keeping regional spread in mind. But there will no doubt be
>>  other formulas proposed.)
>>  * A phased approach to its work, e.g:
>>  - finalise work procedures etc. by 31 July 2011 (ncluding a schedule
>  > of
>>  meetings)
>>  - reassess and cluster all input from stakeholders by 31 August 2011
>>  - make use of the Nairobi IGF in September 2011 to have a face to face
>>  meeting as a group, and also gather feedback from IGF stakeholders in an
>>  open platform
>>  - have meeting focused on IGF improvements with the MAG during the
>>  November 2011 open consultation
>>  - have a consultation with the UNGIS group in November 2011
>>  - have a consultation with developing country representatives in Geneva
>>  also in November 2011 (as their participation is a key goal of IGF
>>  improvements)
>>  - compile a draft report by the end of December 2011
>>  - gather feedback on the report during January and February 2012
>>  - finalise the report by the end of March 2012
>
>no particular objection to the timelines as much, but the schedule appears
>to be too extended, and I am not sure such a long processes is needed.
>
>>
>>  3. With regard to the composition of the MAG I have a particular
>>  proposal which is that along with 5 CS, 5 business, 5 technical
>>  community, a new cluster of 5 is added for the academic and research
>>  community.
>
>As discussed with you yesterday, I prefer 'interest representation' as the
>basis of legitimacy to be nominated to the MAG rather than expertise (which
>is implied within 'interest representation'). Asking for a new academic
>community category does not go with this principle i consider as very
>important. It also undermines the overall political claims of civil society
>in governance, because expertise based presence is obviously acceptable only
>as an input and in advisory capacity, and not in actual political
>negotiations that lead to political decisions, which is what policy
>decisions finally are.
>
>Also, importantly, there is already the 'technical and academic community'
>as a group which was supposed to nominate members from both sub groups... I
>think these two groups belong together to the extent that there contribution
>is primarily 'expertise based'.
>
>On the other hand individual members of these communities can and will be
>part of 'interest based representation' in civil society, private sector and
>also governments.
>
>
>>
>>  I think this is more likely to succeed that asking for more CS
>>  representatives than the other stakeholder groups have.
>>
>>  However, this still needs further discussion in this space. I have run
>>  it by several people, some like it, but some have concerns which they
>>  can share here.
>>
>>  Any other suggestions?
>>
>>  Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  On 22/05/11 11:48, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>>  Hello Wolfgang and all,
>>>
>>>  Anriette has been working on a statetement from CS supporting the
>>>  continuation of the CSTD WG. IGF improvements and WSIS review will be
>>>  discussed on Tuesday, so we should have news after that. CS is having
>>>  an informal dinner with representatives from the technical community
>>>  and the business sector on Monday night to chat about CSTD. I am
>>>  really happy that we will have the opportunity to do it.
>>>
>>>  So far, as long as we know, the only one to support extintion of the
>>>  WG is the United States. They sent a letter to CSTD saying that. You
>>>  can access it here:http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/ (on the right
>>>  side)
>>>
>>>  The members of CSTD bureau will meet tomorrow morning, before the
>>>  conference, to talk about proposals of resolutions. Europe will be
>>>  proposing one resolution about IGF improvement, but we dont know its
>>>  exact content. I heard their goal is not to let discussions in WG go
>>>  completely to waste. Europe has been supportive, and they (Hungary)
>>>  backed me up when I complained about lack of executive coordinator
>>>  and chair for the IGF process, during WSIS tacking stocks session.
>>>
>>>  I will be in the meeting, but not exactly as CS representative,
>>>  because my organization does not have ECOSOC status. I will be there
>>>  invited by the Brazilian delegation, so I am not sure about my
>>>  possibility to intervene. But Anriette will be there as APC, Katitza
>>>  will be observing as EFF and we heard Parminder will be here as well,
>>>  but not sure.
>  >>
>>>  Best,
>>>  Marília
>>>
>>>  On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org
>>>  <mailto:katitza at eff.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      Hi Wolfgang:
>>>
>>>      I am not familiar with the UNCSTD meeting. Anriette and Marilia are
>>>      our representative there.
>>>
>>>      Katitza
>>>
>>>
>>>      On 5/22/11 9:15 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>
>>>          Thanks Katitza,
>>>
>>>          any information about outcomes from the MAG meeting?  And who
>>>          nis going to monitor (or make a statement) in the forthcoming
>>>          UNCSTD meeting?
>>>
>>>          wolfgang
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          ________________________________
>>>
>>>          Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>          <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> im Auftrag von Katitza
>>>  Rodriguez
>>>          Gesendet: Sa 21.05.2011 19 <tel:21.05.2011%2019>:01
>  >>         An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>          <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Katitza Rodriguez
>>>          Betreff: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          Hi there,
>>>
>>>          I want to let you know that civil society members in Geneva
>>>  worked
>>>          extremely hard during the open consultation and the open MAG
>>>          meeting.
>>>          Those identify with civil society were: APC Anriette Esterhuysen
>>>          and Joy
>>>          Liddicoat, Marilia Maciel, Adam Peake, and Bill Drake. Please
>>>          apologize
>>>          me if I forgot of anyone else.
>>>
>>>          All the best,
>>>
>>>          Katitza
>>>
>>>
>>>          On 5/21/11 6:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>>
>>>              Dear IGC members (plus other stakeholders in this list):
>>>
>>>              I want to inform civil society IGC members that only four
>>>  civil
>>>              society MAG members were able to attend the last Open
>>>              Consultation and
>>>              MAG meeting. The civil society MAG members were: Valeria
>>>              Betancourt,
>>>              Fouad Bawja, Graciela Selaimen, and myself.
>>>
>>>              It is important to understand that four civil society MAG
>>>              members are
>>>              not enough to allow civil society to effectively monitor and
>>>              shape
>>>              "all" the main sessions for the next IGF. During the OC,
>>>  we have
>>>              requested the IGF Secretariat to provide us with a better
>>>              understanding of the current list of civil society MAG
>>>              members, and
>>>              the need to fill out those civil society slots in the MAG so
>>>              we can
>>>              keep the balance between all stakeholders.
>>>
>>>              In this MAG meeting, we were able to cover between 3-4
>>>              sessions. In
>>>              the next days to come, we will be monitoring the other
>>>              sessions (which
>>>              will not be able to monitor in-situ) to make sure civil
>>>              society voice
>>>              is included. As a MAG member, my main concern is the SOP
>>>              session. If
>>>              you want to send me a "private message" about the issues
>>>              that you
>>>              consider should be discussed, please do so by sending an
>>>              email to
>>>              katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org> Our main input for
>>>              discussion is the February Open
>>>              Consultation where many of you (and other stakeholders)
>>>  provided
>>>              valuable comments, and we will work hard to ensure that
>>>  those
>>>              suggestions are included.
>>>
>>>              I also would like to call attention to the fact that this
>>>              list is open
>>>              to other stakeholders including public authorities,
>>>  government
>>>              officials, technical community, and business sector
>>>              representatives.
>>>              Therefore, members need to understand that MAG members have
>>>              a very
>>>              difficult task to share strategies in a public list. Any
>>>  public
>>>              strategy that we can share here, can always harm our
>>>  collective
>>>              efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy in advance
>  >>             is a big
>>>              problem and can harm our work.
>>>
>>>              I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for
>>>              IGC-only
>>>              members that is close to their members. In that way, civil
>>>              society MAG
>>>              members will be able to provide a better report after the
>>>              meeting.
>>>
>>>              All the best, Katitza
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>              ____________________________________________________________
>>>              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
>>>
>>>
>>>          --
>>>          Katitza Rodriguez
>>>          International Rights Director
>>>          Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>          katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>>>          katitza at datos-personales.org
>>>          <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org> (personal email)
>>>
>>>          Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>>>          freedom of speech since 1990
>>>
>>>          ____________________________________________________________
>>>          You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>               governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>  <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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      --
>>>      Katitza Rodriguez
>>>      International Rights Director
>>>      Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>      katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>>>      katitza at datos-personales.org <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org>
>>>      (personal email)
>>>
>>>      Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>>>      freedom of speech since 1990
>>>
>>>      ____________________________________________________________
>>>      You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>         governance at lists.cpsr.org <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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>>  Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>>>  FGV Direito Rio
>>>
>>>  Center for Technology and Society
>>>  Getulio Vargas Foundation
>>>  Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>>
>>  --
>>  ------------------------------------------------------
>>  anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>  executive director, association for progressive communications
>>  www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109
>  > south africa
>>  tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>  For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>  To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 24 08:23:08 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:23:08 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
References: <4DDB5BE2.60102@apc.org> <p06240818ca012b9467f4@[192.168.1.160]>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C030@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Adam:
I don't understand the reasoning behind the timeline, isn't a report required before March 2012?  (when will ECOSOC/GA need to think about the IGF again?)  
 
Wolfgang:
Thsi discussion in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA starts early October 2011, that is just after the Nairobi meeting. My interpretation of Sha´s timeline is that he wants to see the results (success or failures) of the Nairobi meeting to feed the UNGA debate which has the final authority to make any decision about "improvement" with or without a report from CSTD/ECOSOC. Part of such a new UN Resolution could be also a new method to populate a MAG (or to constitute something else). Insofar, as I said in a previous mail, the "outstanding success of the Nairobi IGF" is extremely important. Such an "outstanding success" would demonstrate that the community is meanwhile in a position to manage an IGF process also without "guidance" from the UN member states and its bodies.
 
w
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Tue May 24 08:52:16 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:52:16 +0200
Subject: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
In-Reply-To: <p0624081bca013f25fdfc@[192.168.1.160]>
References: <4DDB5BE2.60102@apc.org> <p06240818ca012b9467f4@[192.168.1.160]> <4DDB871B.3080908@eff.org> <p0624081bca013f25fdfc@[192.168.1.160]>
Message-ID: <4DDBAA00.4010000@eff.org>

Dear Adam,

Thank you very much for raising this issue. Yes, I strongly agree that 
civil society MAG members are currently under represented, and will 
continue to be until those civil society slots in the MAGs are being 
filled out. This is something we have been working on. I will report 
about any advance we can do on this regards.

All the best,

Katitza


On 5/24/11 1:18 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>> Dear Adam,
>>
>> On 5/24/11 12:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>> Section 2.  I don't understand the reasoning behind the timeline, 
>>> isn't a report required before March 2012?  (when will ECOSOC/GA 
>>> need to think about the IGF again?)  But the items make sense. 
>>> Except perhaps involving the MAG which unless formally renewed and 
>>> repopulated (Catch 22?) isn't really in a state to be a partner in a 
>>> consultation.
>> Can you elaborate your point re: MAG? MAG is not repopulated, either? 
>> Are they?
>
>
> Katitza, hi.
>
> Just to be clear, I was referring to Anriette's email and suggestion 
> that the CSTD working group on IGF improvements:
>
> At 9:18 AM +0200 5/24/11, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> - have meeting focused on IGF improvements with the MAG during the
>> November 2011 open consultation
>
>
> You mentioned there had been a letter from Mr. Sha, "extending an 
> invitation to all present MAG members to continue their work until the 
> conclusion of the 2011 IGF meeting in Nairobi."  But it doesn't seem 
> extend the MAG's function beyond Nairobi, which is September. And Mr 
> Sha hasn't replaced members who have left, quite a number from civil 
> society. Even if there was a MAG in November, it would probably be 
> lacking in civil society members so you guys remaining would be at a 
> disadvantage (again) in discussions.
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>> -- 
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> International Rights Director
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> katitza at eff.org
>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>
>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and 
>> freedom of speech since 1990
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 24 09:26:33 2011
From: bommelaer at isoc.org (Constance Bommelaer)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:26:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] [G8] Live stream and I* Press release
Message-ID: <20110524132712.BFB044B7B5@npogroups.org>

Dear all,

 

You will find attached the common press release (in French and English) we
have prepared for the eG8 Forum with ISOC France, ICANN, the W3C and the
NRO. It is also posted at: http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3791

 

Fyi, there is a live stream and full program for the e-G8 here:
http://www.facebook.com/EG8Forum

 

Best regards,

 

Constance Bommelaer

Senior Manager

Strategic Global Engagement

Internet Society

www.isoc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110524/4926ec7a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 201105-eG8-PR-DRAFT-FINAL-FR.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 22915 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110524/4926ec7a/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 201105-eG8-PR-DRAFT-FINAL-EN-1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 20848 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110524/4926ec7a/attachment-0001.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 avri at ella.com  Tue May 24 09:45:27 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 09:45:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <CA01AD1F.19171%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <CA01AD1F.19171%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <B76D3E71-7A7F-469C-8463-77798E351661@ella.com>

hi,

Thanks, and just in time to catch Divina speaking.

That was great.  

Also, it interesting to think of Jimmy Wales & Wikipedia as Civil Society.  I missed that point before.

a.



On 24 May 2011, at 04:44, Ian Peter wrote:

> There is a live stream and full program for e-G8 here
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/EG8Forum
> 
> Also twitter #eg8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> From: Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr>
>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr>
>> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 06:21:49 +0200
>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I have been waiting official confirmation until the last minute ... And it
>> seems I will be able to attend the e-G8 forum. I should make it clear that
>> it is not upon the invitation of the French government ...
>> 
>> In any case, considering the situation and the programme, I am not sure
>> there will be opportunities to speak much, but I will try to do some
>> reporting back on major exchanges...
>> 
>> Best
>> Divina 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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


From dmiloshevic at afilias.info  Tue May 24 11:09:45 2011
From: dmiloshevic at afilias.info (Desiree Miloshevic)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 16:09:45 +0100
Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <CA00FEFD.21178%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <CA00FEFD.21178%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <D9670D58-5AA6-44C5-9B64-F5D777B18EE0@afilias.info>

Divina

Great intervention (about the input from civil society and other  
stakeholders being overlooked by the organisers )
The applause in the room is a proof that it has been well received.

As well as the promise of Levy that next G8 would address that.

Desiree
--
On 24 May 2011, at 05:21, Divina MEIGS wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I have been waiting official confirmation until the last minute ...  
> And it
> seems I will be able to attend the e-G8 forum. I should make it  
> clear that
> it is not upon the invitation of the French government ...
>
> In any case, considering the situation and the programme, I am not  
> sure
> there will be opportunities to speak much, but I will try to do some
> reporting back on major exchanges...
>
> Best
> Divina
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 24 11:16:10 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 17:16:10 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
References: <CA00FEFD.21178%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
 <D9670D58-5AA6-44C5-9B64-F5D777B18EE0@afilias.info>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C032@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Is there remote participation?
 
w
 

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Desiree Miloshevic
Gesendet: Di 24.05.2011 17:09
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Divina MEIGS
Betreff: Re: [governance] : e-G8 forum



Divina

Great intervention (about the input from civil society and other 
stakeholders being overlooked by the organisers )
The applause in the room is a proof that it has been well received.

As well as the promise of Levy that next G8 would address that.

Desiree
--
On 24 May 2011, at 05:21, Divina MEIGS wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I have been waiting official confirmation until the last minute ... 
> And it
> seems I will be able to attend the e-G8 forum. I should make it 
> clear that
> it is not upon the invitation of the French government ...
>
> In any case, considering the situation and the programme, I am not 
> sure
> there will be opportunities to speak much, but I will try to do some
> reporting back on major exchanges...
>
> Best
> Divina
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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



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

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

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


From dcogburn at syr.edu  Tue May 24 11:22:02 2011
From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 11:22:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <D9670D58-5AA6-44C5-9B64-F5D777B18EE0@afilias.info>
References: <CA00FEFD.21178%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
 <D9670D58-5AA6-44C5-9B64-F5D777B18EE0@afilias.info>
Message-ID: <B39D29B6-009D-46B0-B926-D40912F7720E@syr.edu>

Congratulations Divina.

Cheers,
Derrick

Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn
Associate Professor of International Relations
International Communication Program
School of International Service
American University

Director: Center for Research on Collaboratories and
Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (COTELCO)
http://cotelco.net

Sent from my iPad

On May 24, 2011, at 11:10 AM, "Desiree Miloshevic" <dmiloshevic at afilias.info> wrote:

> Divina
> 
> Great intervention (about the input from civil society and other  
> stakeholders being overlooked by the organisers )
> The applause in the room is a proof that it has been well received.
> 
> As well as the promise of Levy that next G8 would address that.
> 
> Desiree
> --
> On 24 May 2011, at 05:21, Divina MEIGS wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I have been waiting official confirmation until the last minute ...  
>> And it
>> seems I will be able to attend the e-G8 forum. I should make it  
>> clear that
>> it is not upon the invitation of the French government ...
>> 
>> In any case, considering the situation and the programme, I am not  
>> sure
>> there will be opportunities to speak much, but I will try to do some
>> reporting back on major exchanges...
>> 
>> Best
>> Divina
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Tue May 24 12:58:27 2011
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 12:58:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re:  e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <CA01AD1F.19171%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <CA01AD1F.19171%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <99A6ACE6-DF88-4242-9891-253F9C2B502D@post.harvard.edu>

Whoo-hoo.  John Perry Barlow on a panel - about intellectual property  
rights - with four heads of media companies and the cognizant French  
minister.

A hornet's nest buzzing like that rarely seen, Barlow stirred up.   
Most certainly rare at this stratospheric level.  Perhaps eG8 will  
offer an archive.  The fun started from about 18:00 GMT+2, for  
perhaps :45 minutes.

David

On May 24, 2011, at 4:44 AM, Ian Peter wrote:

> There is a live stream and full program for e-G8 here
>
> http://www.facebook.com/EG8Forum
>
> Also twitter #eg8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> From: Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr>
>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr 
>> >
>> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 06:21:49 +0200
>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I have been waiting official confirmation until the last minute ...  
>> And it
>> seems I will be able to attend the e-G8 forum. I should make it  
>> clear that
>> it is not upon the invitation of the French government ...
>>
>> In any case, considering the situation and the programme, I am not  
>> sure
>> there will be opportunities to speak much, but I will try to do some
>> reporting back on major exchanges...
>>
>> Best
>> Divina
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Tue May 24 16:15:13 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 22:15:13 +0200
Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <B76D3E71-7A7F-469C-8463-77798E351661@ella.com>
Message-ID: <CA01DE71.21218%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Thanks Avri, the feedback has been good and the message has been sent across
for next year :-)  It seems Pr. Schwab, organizer of Davos, would favour
"co-design" which is a venue we might want to pursue in our free time...

Le monde online has published our open letter, by the way, and there will be
a paper on the eG8 tomorrow in the paper paper...
I'll post my first impressions on the first day early tomorrow...

Best
divina 


Le 24/05/11 15:45, « Avri Doria » <avri at ella.com> a écrit :

> hi,
> 
> Thanks, and just in time to catch Divina speaking.
> 
> That was great.  
> 
> Also, it interesting to think of Jimmy Wales & Wikipedia as Civil Society.  I
> missed that point before.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 24 May 2011, at 04:44, Ian Peter wrote:
> 
>> There is a live stream and full program for e-G8 here
>> 
>> http://www.facebook.com/EG8Forum
>> 
>> Also twitter #eg8
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr>
>>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr>
>>> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 06:21:49 +0200
>>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> I have been waiting official confirmation until the last minute ... And it
>>> seems I will be able to attend the e-G8 forum. I should make it clear that
>>> it is not upon the invitation of the French government ...
>>> 
>>> In any case, considering the situation and the programme, I am not sure
>>> there will be opportunities to speak much, but I will try to do some
>>> reporting back on major exchanges...
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> Divina 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


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

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

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


From amedinagomez at gmail.com  Tue May 24 16:28:45 2011
From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:28:45 -0500
Subject: [governance] : e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <CA01DE71.21218%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <B76D3E71-7A7F-469C-8463-77798E351661@ella.com>
	<CA01DE71.21218%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <BANLkTik3exf2JHLLJ6hvsp5aze99akUQ2w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi ... I share with you the following linke-G8 : les inquiétudes de la
société civile
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2011/05/24/e-g8-les-inquietudes-de-la-societe-civile_1526810_651865.html#ens_id=1526382

Antonio Medina Gomez
Asociacion Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet

2011/5/24 Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr>

> Thanks Avri, the feedback has been good and the message has been sent
> across
> for next year :-)  It seems Pr. Schwab, organizer of Davos, would favour
> "co-design" which is a venue we might want to pursue in our free time...
>
> Le monde online has published our open letter, by the way, and there will
> be
> a paper on the eG8 tomorrow in the paper paper...
> I'll post my first impressions on the first day early tomorrow...
>
> Best
> divina
>
>
> Le 24/05/11 15:45, « Avri Doria » <avri at ella.com> a écrit :
>
> > hi,
> >
> > Thanks, and just in time to catch Divina speaking.
> >
> > That was great.
> >
> > Also, it interesting to think of Jimmy Wales & Wikipedia as Civil
> Society.  I
> > missed that point before.
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 24 May 2011, at 04:44, Ian Peter wrote:
> >
> >> There is a live stream and full program for e-G8 here
> >>
> >> http://www.facebook.com/EG8Forum
> >>
> >> Also twitter #eg8
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> From: Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr>
> >>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Divina MEIGS <
> divina.meigs at orange.fr>
> >>> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 06:21:49 +0200
> >>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> >>> Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
> >>>
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> I have been waiting official confirmation until the last minute ... And
> it
> >>> seems I will be able to attend the e-G8 forum. I should make it clear
> that
> >>> it is not upon the invitation of the French government ...
> >>>
> >>> In any case, considering the situation and the programme, I am not sure
> >>> there will be opportunities to speak much, but I will try to do some
> >>> reporting back on major exchanges...
> >>>
> >>> Best
> >>> Divina
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>
> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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/20110524/d8aed903/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  Tue May 24 17:39:31 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 23:39:31 +0200
Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <CA01DE71.21218%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <CA01DE71.21218%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <4DDC2593.5020308@apc.org>

Well done Divina.

It sounds as if the e-G8 is quite sparky :)

Anriette

On 24/05/11 22:15, Divina MEIGS wrote:
> Thanks Avri, the feedback has been good and the message has been sent across
> for next year :-)  It seems Pr. Schwab, organizer of Davos, would favour
> "co-design" which is a venue we might want to pursue in our free time...
> 
> Le monde online has published our open letter, by the way, and there will be
> a paper on the eG8 tomorrow in the paper paper...
> I'll post my first impressions on the first day early tomorrow...
> 
> Best
> divina 
> 
> 
> Le 24/05/11 15:45, « Avri Doria » <avri at ella.com> a écrit :
> 
>> hi,
>>
>> Thanks, and just in time to catch Divina speaking.
>>
>> That was great.  
>>
>> Also, it interesting to think of Jimmy Wales & Wikipedia as Civil Society.  I
>> missed that point before.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 24 May 2011, at 04:44, Ian Peter wrote:
>>
>>> There is a live stream and full program for e-G8 here
>>>
>>> http://www.facebook.com/EG8Forum
>>>
>>> Also twitter #eg8
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr>
>>>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr>
>>>> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 06:21:49 +0200
>>>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>> Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I have been waiting official confirmation until the last minute ... And it
>>>> seems I will be able to attend the e-G8 forum. I should make it clear that
>>>> it is not upon the invitation of the French government ...
>>>>
>>>> In any case, considering the situation and the programme, I am not sure
>>>> there will be opportunities to speak much, but I will try to do some
>>>> reporting back on major exchanges...
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Divina 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From anriette at apc.org  Tue May 24 18:45:49 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 00:45:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
In-Reply-To: <p06240818ca012b9467f4@[192.168.1.160]>
References: <4DDB5BE2.60102@apc.org> <p06240818ca012b9467f4@[192.168.1.160]>
Message-ID: <4DDC351D.504@apc.org>

Thanks for the comments Adam and Parminder.

Responses to Adam below:

On 24/05/11 12:05, Adam Peake wrote:
> Anriette, thank you.  Very practical.
> 
> Just a couple of comments.  Section 1.  Extending the mandate of the
> CSTD working group.  Perhaps a first step is to gain agreement on what
> that mandate includes and does not, the WG's scope. Does the initial
> questionnaire, attached, essentially define the WG's scope?  It seems
> to. Insisting on discussing issues that some feel out of scope will only
> lead to disagreement later, waste time.  Get the impression some of the
> problems of the first phase came from the chair not controlling the
> discussion better.

Yes..I should in fact have emphasised that more. As they day went along
the meeting became more and more confused, in my opinion, on the mandate
of the WG and the relationship between the WG and the CSTD.

The mandate is defined very broadly by the resolution of the General
Assembly.

The questionnaire reflects the agreement reached by the Working Group at
is first meeting (in February) on the issues to be covered in its report.

Yes, definitely, the whole process could have been managed more effectively.

> Might be worth remembering that for the first five IGF meetings the
> process was often described as an experiment, different things were
> tried, wasn't always expected that they'd be 100% right. IGF's a new
> process so best to accept a measure of experimentation.  This acceptance
> of experimentation could be helpful when thinking about the first three
> issues in the questionnaire (if the questionnaire's relevant as I think...)

Yes... if a report is ever written that should be stressed.
> 
> You might suggest that when the WG is then unable to reach consensus it
> follow the precedent of WGIG and propose options.

We actually did talk about proposing options... this came up at some
point.. I can't remember quite when. Perhaps it was in one of APC's
multiple submissions actually :)  I think at the November 24 meeting.

I should have mentioned that today. If this process does continue, we
should keep that in mind.
> 
> Section 2.  I don't understand the reasoning behind the timeline, isn't
> a report required before March 2012?  (when will ECOSOC/GA need to think
> about the IGF again?)  

The IGF has been continued. The General Assembly will review it again in
5 years time.

However, ECOSOC is expecting a report at its next meeting, which is in
June. The Working Group has to "seek, compile and review inputs from all
Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis
Agenda..."

You can see why some people feel it has 'completed' its work.

If it just does a more careful compilation it could finish its work in
less time. You are quite right. I was being careful.. trying to make
sure we don't run out of time again.

But it is interesting to reflect on what this report should really do,
usefully. What would the value of just a compilation be?  Would some
more concrete suggestions, and options, for improvement not go a lot
further?  There is so much information overload in the MAG and IGF
community already.

At least what some of us were hoping to achieve was a document with
clear, and concrete suggestion on which there was broad consensus.

Other more contentious areas, such as, for example, MAG composition,
could be suggested as options.

But keep in mind that if there are options in the report ECOSOC might
select among them. I think so at least.

But the items make sense.  Except perhaps
> involving the MAG which unless formally renewed and repopulated (Catch
> 22?) isn't really in a state to be a partner in a consultation.

I suggested it as a compromise as some governments had proposed that the
MAG can improve itself and the IGF. I agree with you.

Nevertheless, whatever state it is in, the MAG is an important grouping
in the IGF and inviting MAG members to a discussion feels appropriate to me.

> Section 3.  Proposed new MAG structure is pragmatic.  It would help to
> rebalance the membership without taking away from any other stakeholder
> (which won't happen, no one gives up seats in such situations.)

Yes.. I feel that. Parminder and others have raised different perspectives.

There are different views on what 'constituencies' in the MAG signify.

For me it signifies a group of individuals that are tasked with
organising the IGF based on inputs from the IGF community and the
broader issues, challenges etc. related to internet public policy.

I believe it should be composed of individuals from different
stakeholder groups to make sure that the views, experiences, and
interests reflected in the group are diverse. Added to this should be
geographic, gender balance, and a mix of opinions.

There are other criteria -  currently not taken seriously enough in my
view - such as the ability to participate, willingness to work hard,
speak out and argue if needed.

But I don't believe that MAG members should act in the MAG as 'elected
officials' who can only participate based on a mandate from their
constituencies.

I suppose the difference is this:

MAG as an integrated group of individuals who work together as a team,
with the team composed through drawing on different stakeholder groups.

OR

MAG as a group made up of representatives of 4 'sectors' who represent
the interests of those sectors in the MAG and who influences the MAG
process through working in caucuses. More time is spent consulting your
fellow 'stakeholder group' members to ensure you present a common
position, than is spent debating with other stakeholder groups and
coming up with creative proposals for a dynamic IGF.

I prefer the former. It is hard to achieve, but it can be achieved and
it can only work through dialogue, which is what the IGF is all about.

The latter feels quite stunted and counter productive to me, and a step
backwards from the WGIG (Working Group on Internet Governance) which was
the model on which the MAG was based.


But I do see Parminder's point.. which relates to trying to formulate
mechanisms for multi-stakeholder participation on a more structured
basis for the long term.

Anriette


> 
> Best,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
>> Dear all
>>
>> I have not had time to draft a statement on the working group on IGF
>> improvements but I have discussed the matter with lots of people and
>> this morning, on the panel dedicated to this, I thought of making the
>> following points.  I will check in with Parminder and Marilia first, but
>> based on what we have been discussing the key points are:
>>
>> 1. It is important for the working group to continue / have its mandate
>> extended:
>> * The IGF needs to address some key weaknesses if it is to be a
>> meaningful forum for dialogue on global internet policy among different
>> stakeholders.
>> * There are enough good proposals for IGF improvements on the table. The
>> working group has received sufficient input from stakeholders,
>> complemented by proposals made by members of the working group.
>> What it did not complete was synthesising proposed changes, and reaching
>> agreement on such changes.
>> * Inspite of some disagreement, there was also substantial common
>> ground, e.g. on the importance of the IGF and its fundamental character
>> as a forum for dialogue as opposed to a policy negotiating forum.
>>
>> 2. Continuation should be linked to a clear decisions on the work
>> procedures and work schedule/timeline of the working group. In
>> particular:
>>
>> * Assigning a chair and a co-chair.
>> * Assistance from the secretariat (who, how, what)
>> * Convening a small drafting group with representatives of all
>> stakeholders (I would propose one person per non-governmental
>> stakeholder group = 3 + 5 government representatives selected by the
>> group keeping regional spread in mind. But there will no doubt be other
>> formulas proposed.)
>> * A phased approach to its work, e.g:
>> - finalise work procedures etc. by 31 July 2011 (ncluding a schedule of
>> meetings)
>> - reassess and cluster all input from stakeholders by 31 August 2011
>> - make use of the Nairobi IGF in September 2011 to have a face to face
>> meeting as a group, and also gather feedback from IGF stakeholders in an
>> open platform
>> - have meeting focused on IGF improvements with the MAG during the
>> November 2011 open consultation
>> - have a consultation with the UNGIS group in November 2011
>> - have a consultation with developing country representatives in Geneva
>> also in November 2011 (as their participation is a key goal of IGF
>> improvements)
>> - compile a draft report by the end of December 2011
>> - gather feedback on the report during January and February 2012
>> - finalise the report by the end of March 2012
>>
>> 3. With regard to the composition of the MAG I have a particular
>> proposal which is that along with 5 CS, 5 business, 5 technical
>> community, a new cluster of 5 is added for the academic and research
>> community.
>>
>> I think this is more likely to succeed that asking for more CS
>> representatives than the other stakeholder groups have.
>>
>> However, this still needs further discussion in this space. I have run
>> it by several people, some like it, but some have concerns which they
>> can share here.
>>
>> Any other suggestions?
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22/05/11 11:48, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>>  Hello Wolfgang and all,
>>>
>>>  Anriette has been working on a statetement from CS supporting the
>>>  continuation of the CSTD WG. IGF improvements and WSIS review will be
>>>  discussed on Tuesday, so we should have news after that. CS is
>>> having an
>>>  informal dinner with representatives from the technical community and
>>>  the business sector on Monday night to chat about CSTD. I am really
>>>  happy that we will have the opportunity to do it.
>>>
>>>  So far, as long as we know, the only one to support extintion of the WG
>>>  is the United States. They sent a letter to CSTD saying that. You can
>>>  access it here:http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/ (on the right side)
>>>
>>>  The members of CSTD bureau will meet tomorrow morning, before the
>>>  conference, to talk about proposals of resolutions. Europe will be
>>>  proposing one resolution about IGF improvement, but we dont know its
>>>  exact content. I heard their goal is not to let discussions in WG go
>>>  completely to waste. Europe has been supportive, and they (Hungary)
>>>  backed me up when I complained about lack of executive coordinator and
>>>  chair for the IGF process, during WSIS tacking stocks session.
>>>
>>>  I will be in the meeting, but not exactly as CS representative, because
>>>  my organization does not have ECOSOC status. I will be there invited by
>>>  the Brazilian delegation, so I am not sure about my possibility to
>>>  intervene. But Anriette will be there as APC, Katitza will be observing
>>>  as EFF and we heard Parminder will be here as well, but not sure.
>>>
>>>  Best,
>>>  Marília
>>>
>>>  On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org
>>>  <mailto:katitza at eff.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      Hi Wolfgang:
>>>
>>>      I am not familiar with the UNCSTD meeting. Anriette and Marilia are
>>>      our representative there.
>>>
>>>      Katitza
>>>
>>>
>>>      On 5/22/11 9:15 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>
>>>          Thanks Katitza,
>>>
>>>          any information about outcomes from the MAG meeting?  And who
>>>          nis going to monitor (or make a statement) in the forthcoming
>>>          UNCSTD meeting?
>>>
>>>          wolfgang
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          ________________________________
>>>
>>>          Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>          <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> im Auftrag von Katitza
>>> Rodriguez
>>>          Gesendet: Sa 21.05.2011 19 <tel:21.05.2011%2019>:01
>>>          An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>          <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Katitza Rodriguez
>>>          Betreff: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          Hi there,
>>>
>>>          I want to let you know that civil society members in Geneva
>>> worked
>>>          extremely hard during the open consultation and the open MAG
>>>          meeting.
>>>          Those identify with civil society were: APC Anriette
>>> Esterhuysen
>>>          and Joy
>>>          Liddicoat, Marilia Maciel, Adam Peake, and Bill Drake. Please
>>>          apologize
>>>          me if I forgot of anyone else.
>>>
>>>          All the best,
>>>
>>>          Katitza
>>>
>>>
>>>          On 5/21/11 6:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>>
>>>              Dear IGC members (plus other stakeholders in this list):
>>>
>>>              I want to inform civil society IGC members that only
>>> four civil
>>>              society MAG members were able to attend the last Open
>>>              Consultation and
>>>              MAG meeting. The civil society MAG members were: Valeria
>>>              Betancourt,
>>>              Fouad Bawja, Graciela Selaimen, and myself.
>>  >
>>>              It is important to understand that four civil society MAG
>>>              members are
>>>              not enough to allow civil society to effectively monitor
>>> and
>>>              shape
>>>              "all" the main sessions for the next IGF. During the OC,
>>> we have
>>>              requested the IGF Secretariat to provide us with a better
>>>              understanding of the current list of civil society MAG
>>>              members, and
>>>              the need to fill out those civil society slots in the
>>> MAG so
>>>              we can
>>>              keep the balance between all stakeholders.
>>>
>>>              In this MAG meeting, we were able to cover between 3-4
>>>              sessions. In
>>>              the next days to come, we will be monitoring the other
>>>              sessions (which
>>>              will not be able to monitor in-situ) to make sure civil
>>>              society voice
>>>              is included. As a MAG member, my main concern is the SOP
>>>              session. If
>>>              you want to send me a "private message" about the issues
>>>              that you
>>>              consider should be discussed, please do so by sending an
>>>              email to
>>>              katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org> Our main input for
>>>              discussion is the February Open
>>>              Consultation where many of you (and other stakeholders)
>>> provided
>>>              valuable comments, and we will work hard to ensure that
>>> those
>>>              suggestions are included.
>>>
>>>              I also would like to call attention to the fact that this
>>>              list is open
>>>              to other stakeholders including public authorities,
>>> government
>>>              officials, technical community, and business sector
>>>              representatives.
>>>              Therefore, members need to understand that MAG members have
>>>              a very
>>>              difficult task to share strategies in a public list. Any
>>> public
>>>              strategy that we can share here, can always harm our
>>> collective
>>>              efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy in advance
>>>              is a big
>>>              problem and can harm our work.
>>>
>>>              I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for
>>>              IGC-only
>>>              members that is close to their members. In that way, civil
>>>              society MAG
>>>              members will be able to provide a better report after the
>>>              meeting.
>>>
>>>              All the best, Katitza
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>              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
>>>
>>>
>>>          --
>>>          Katitza Rodriguez
>>>          International Rights Director
>>>          Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>          katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>>>          katitza at datos-personales.org
>>>          <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org> (personal email)
>>>
>>>          Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>>>          freedom of speech since 1990
>>>
>>>          ____________________________________________________________
>>>          You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>               governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> <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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      --
>>>      Katitza Rodriguez
>>>      International Rights Director
>>>      Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>      katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>>>      katitza at datos-personales.org <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org>
>>>      (personal email)
>>>
>>>      Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>>>      freedom of speech since 1990
>>>
>>>      ____________________________________________________________
>>>      You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>         governance at lists.cpsr.org <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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>>  Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>>>  FGV Direito Rio
>>>
>>>  Center for Technology and Society
>>>  Getulio Vargas Foundation
>>>  Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>>
>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Tue May 24 18:59:51 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 18:59:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
In-Reply-To: <4DDBAA00.4010000@eff.org>
References: <4DDB5BE2.60102@apc.org> <p06240818ca012b9467f4@[192.168.1.160]> <4DDB871B.3080908@eff.org> <p0624081bca013f25fdfc@[192.168.1.160]> <4DDBAA00.4010000@eff.org>
Message-ID: <C728A499-0C03-4C50-B0AF-B798FF483430@ella.com>

Hi,

One thing to do, once we get the list of remaining members you have asked for many times is to create  a nomcom to put together a list of people to suggest.    Why wait for them to ask?

In fact since it takes weeks to get a nomcom going, it might be time to start setting one up.

a.


On 24 May 2011, at 08:52, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

> Dear Adam,
> 
> Thank you very much for raising this issue. Yes, I strongly agree that civil society MAG members are currently under represented, and will continue to be until those civil society slots in the MAGs are being filled out. This is something we have been working on. I will report about any advance we can do on this regards.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Katitza
> 
> 
> On 5/24/11 1:18 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>> Dear Adam,
>>> 
>>> On 5/24/11 12:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>> Section 2.  I don't understand the reasoning behind the timeline, isn't a report required before March 2012?  (when will ECOSOC/GA need to think about the IGF again?)  But the items make sense. Except perhaps involving the MAG which unless formally renewed and repopulated (Catch 22?) isn't really in a state to be a partner in a consultation.
>>> Can you elaborate your point re: MAG? MAG is not repopulated, either? Are they?
>> 
>> 
>> Katitza, hi.
>> 
>> Just to be clear, I was referring to Anriette's email and suggestion that the CSTD working group on IGF improvements:
>> 
>> At 9:18 AM +0200 5/24/11, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>> - have meeting focused on IGF improvements with the MAG during the
>>> November 2011 open consultation
>> 
>> 
>> You mentioned there had been a letter from Mr. Sha, "extending an invitation to all present MAG members to continue their work until the conclusion of the 2011 IGF meeting in Nairobi."  But it doesn't seem extend the MAG's function beyond Nairobi, which is September. And Mr Sha hasn't replaced members who have left, quite a number from civil society. Even if there was a MAG in November, it would probably be lacking in civil society members so you guys remaining would be at a disadvantage (again) in discussions.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Adam
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Katitza Rodriguez
>>> International Rights Director
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> katitza at eff.org
>>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>> 
>>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
> 
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Tue May 24 19:02:17 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 19:02:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
In-Reply-To: <p06240823ca015027fa53@[192.168.1.160]>
References: <8A6445F78AD74D58A7D84F1F0C07C1A1@userPC> <p06240823ca015027fa53@[192.168.1.160]>
Message-ID: <CB04047E-75E4-414D-A600-7FE37D5CB9F8@ella.com>

Hi,

Were academics qua academics being excluded or was it just the case that "The Academics" should not be a category unto themselves?

a.

On 24 May 2011, at 08:16, Adam Peake wrote:

>> I agree with Parminder in his discussion of the possibility of separate
>> "academic representation" on the MAG.
>> 
>> The appropriate role of academics in this context is either as expert
>> advisers (in specific areas) to the MAG or as representing the
>> academic/research role as contributing technically to the development of the
>> Internet.
> 
> 
> Who made that rule :-)
> 
> Seriously, why are academics excluded?  There's a very active and growing network of academics involved in IGF issues.  Summer schools growing, GigaNet holding meetings with IGFs and separately, Diplo's work.
> 
> More important is the practicality of Anriette's proposal.  It adds what would likely be CS (leaning) voices, without taking seats away from incumbents.  It might work.  Probably not ideal, but likely much better than the situation we've found ourselves in.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
>> Otherwise as Parminder says, academics will, depending on their
>> interests and persuasions be contributors to various of the other
>> representative groups as for example this one.
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
>> Of parminder at itforchange.net
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:54 PM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The general outlines of the statement look good. However, some comments
>> inline.
>> 
>>> Dear all
>>> 
>>> I have not had time to draft a statement on the working group on IGF
>>> improvements but I have discussed the matter with lots of people and
>>> this morning, on the panel dedicated to this, I thought of making the
>>> following points.  I will check in with Parminder and Marilia first,
>>> but based on what we have been discussing the key points are:
>>> 
>>> 1. It is important for the working group to continue / have its
>>> mandate
>>> extended:
>>> * The IGF needs to address some key weaknesses if it is to be a
>>> meaningful forum for dialogue on global internet policy among different
>>> stakeholders.
>>> * There are enough good proposals for IGF improvements on the table. The
>>> working group has received sufficient input from stakeholders,
>>> complemented by proposals made by members of the working group.
>>> What it did not complete was synthesising proposed changes, and reaching
>>> agreement on such changes.
>>> * Inspite of some disagreement, there was also substantial common
>>> ground, e.g. on the importance of the IGF and its fundamental character
>>> as a forum for dialogue
>> 
>> and policy inputs
>> 
>> 
>>> as opposed to a policy negotiating forum.
>>> 
>>> 2. Continuation should be linked to a clear decisions on the work
>>> procedures and work schedule/timeline of the working group. In
>>> particular:
>>> 
>>> * Assigning a chair and a co-chair.
>>> * Assistance from the secretariat (who, how, what)
>>> * Convening a small drafting group with representatives of all
>>> stakeholders (I would propose one person per non-governmental
>>> stakeholder group = 3 + 5 government representatives selected by the
>>> group keeping regional spread in mind. But there will no doubt be
>>> other formulas proposed.)
>>> * A phased approach to its work, e.g:
>>> - finalise work procedures etc. by 31 July 2011 (ncluding a schedule
>> > of
>>> meetings)
>>> - reassess and cluster all input from stakeholders by 31 August 2011
>>> - make use of the Nairobi IGF in September 2011 to have a face to face
>>> meeting as a group, and also gather feedback from IGF stakeholders in an
>>> open platform
>>> - have meeting focused on IGF improvements with the MAG during the
>>> November 2011 open consultation
>>> - have a consultation with the UNGIS group in November 2011
>>> - have a consultation with developing country representatives in Geneva
>>> also in November 2011 (as their participation is a key goal of IGF
>>> improvements)
>>> - compile a draft report by the end of December 2011
>>> - gather feedback on the report during January and February 2012
>>> - finalise the report by the end of March 2012
>> 
>> no particular objection to the timelines as much, but the schedule appears
>> to be too extended, and I am not sure such a long processes is needed.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 3. With regard to the composition of the MAG I have a particular
>>> proposal which is that along with 5 CS, 5 business, 5 technical
>>> community, a new cluster of 5 is added for the academic and research
>>> community.
>> 
>> As discussed with you yesterday, I prefer 'interest representation' as the
>> basis of legitimacy to be nominated to the MAG rather than expertise (which
>> is implied within 'interest representation'). Asking for a new academic
>> community category does not go with this principle i consider as very
>> important. It also undermines the overall political claims of civil society
>> in governance, because expertise based presence is obviously acceptable only
>> as an input and in advisory capacity, and not in actual political
>> negotiations that lead to political decisions, which is what policy
>> decisions finally are.
>> 
>> Also, importantly, there is already the 'technical and academic community'
>> as a group which was supposed to nominate members from both sub groups... I
>> think these two groups belong together to the extent that there contribution
>> is primarily 'expertise based'.
>> 
>> On the other hand individual members of these communities can and will be
>> part of 'interest based representation' in civil society, private sector and
>> also governments.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I think this is more likely to succeed that asking for more CS
>>> representatives than the other stakeholder groups have.
>>> 
>>> However, this still needs further discussion in this space. I have run
>>> it by several people, some like it, but some have concerns which they
>>> can share here.
>>> 
>>> Any other suggestions?
>>> 
>>> Anriette
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 22/05/11 11:48, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>>> Hello Wolfgang and all,
>>>> 
>>>> Anriette has been working on a statetement from CS supporting the
>>>> continuation of the CSTD WG. IGF improvements and WSIS review will be
>>>> discussed on Tuesday, so we should have news after that. CS is having
>>>> an informal dinner with representatives from the technical community
>>>> and the business sector on Monday night to chat about CSTD. I am
>>>> really happy that we will have the opportunity to do it.
>>>> 
>>>> So far, as long as we know, the only one to support extintion of the
>>>> WG is the United States. They sent a letter to CSTD saying that. You
>>>> can access it here:http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/ (on the right
>>>> side)
>>>> 
>>>> The members of CSTD bureau will meet tomorrow morning, before the
>>>> conference, to talk about proposals of resolutions. Europe will be
>>>> proposing one resolution about IGF improvement, but we dont know its
>>>> exact content. I heard their goal is not to let discussions in WG go
>>>> completely to waste. Europe has been supportive, and they (Hungary)
>>>> backed me up when I complained about lack of executive coordinator
>>>> and chair for the IGF process, during WSIS tacking stocks session.
>>>> 
>>>> I will be in the meeting, but not exactly as CS representative,
>>>> because my organization does not have ECOSOC status. I will be there
>>>> invited by the Brazilian delegation, so I am not sure about my
>>>> possibility to intervene. But Anriette will be there as APC, Katitza
>>>> will be observing as EFF and we heard Parminder will be here as well,
>>>> but not sure.
>> >>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Marília
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org
>>>> <mailto:katitza at eff.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>     Hi Wolfgang:
>>>> 
>>>>     I am not familiar with the UNCSTD meeting. Anriette and Marilia are
>>>>     our representative there.
>>>> 
>>>>     Katitza
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>     On 5/22/11 9:15 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>         Thanks Katitza,
>>>> 
>>>>         any information about outcomes from the MAG meeting?  And who
>>>>         nis going to monitor (or make a statement) in the forthcoming
>>>>         UNCSTD meeting?
>>>> 
>>>>         wolfgang
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>         ________________________________
>>>> 
>>>>         Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>         <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> im Auftrag von Katitza
>>>> Rodriguez
>>>>         Gesendet: Sa 21.05.2011 19 <tel:21.05.2011%2019>:01
>> >>         An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>         <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Katitza Rodriguez
>>>>         Betreff: [governance] Civil Society Members in Geneva
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>         Hi there,
>>>> 
>>>>         I want to let you know that civil society members in Geneva
>>>> worked
>>>>         extremely hard during the open consultation and the open MAG
>>>>         meeting.
>>>>         Those identify with civil society were: APC Anriette Esterhuysen
>>>>         and Joy
>>>>         Liddicoat, Marilia Maciel, Adam Peake, and Bill Drake. Please
>>>>         apologize
>>>>         me if I forgot of anyone else.
>>>> 
>>>>         All the best,
>>>> 
>>>>         Katitza
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>         On 5/21/11 6:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>             Dear IGC members (plus other stakeholders in this list):
>>>> 
>>>>             I want to inform civil society IGC members that only four
>>>> civil
>>>>             society MAG members were able to attend the last Open
>>>>             Consultation and
>>>>             MAG meeting. The civil society MAG members were: Valeria
>>>>             Betancourt,
>>>>             Fouad Bawja, Graciela Selaimen, and myself.
>>>> 
>>>>             It is important to understand that four civil society MAG
>>>>             members are
>>>>             not enough to allow civil society to effectively monitor and
>>>>             shape
>>>>             "all" the main sessions for the next IGF. During the OC,
>>>> we have
>>>>             requested the IGF Secretariat to provide us with a better
>>>>             understanding of the current list of civil society MAG
>>>>             members, and
>>>>             the need to fill out those civil society slots in the MAG so
>>>>             we can
>>>>             keep the balance between all stakeholders.
>>>> 
>>>>             In this MAG meeting, we were able to cover between 3-4
>>>>             sessions. In
>>>>             the next days to come, we will be monitoring the other
>>>>             sessions (which
>>>>             will not be able to monitor in-situ) to make sure civil
>>>>             society voice
>>>>             is included. As a MAG member, my main concern is the SOP
>>>>             session. If
>>>>             you want to send me a "private message" about the issues
>>>>             that you
>>>>             consider should be discussed, please do so by sending an
>>>>             email to
>>>>             katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org> Our main input for
>>>>             discussion is the February Open
>>>>             Consultation where many of you (and other stakeholders)
>>>> provided
>>>>             valuable comments, and we will work hard to ensure that
>>>> those
>>>>             suggestions are included.
>>>> 
>>>>             I also would like to call attention to the fact that this
>>>>             list is open
>>>>             to other stakeholders including public authorities,
>>>> government
>>>>             officials, technical community, and business sector
>>>>             representatives.
>>>>             Therefore, members need to understand that MAG members have
>>>>             a very
>>>>             difficult task to share strategies in a public list. Any
>>>> public
>>>>             strategy that we can share here, can always harm our
>>>> collective
>>>>             efforts in spaces where disclosing your strategy in advance
>> >>             is a big
>>>>             problem and can harm our work.
>>>> 
>>>>             I would like to ask the coordinators to create a list for
>>>>             IGC-only
>>>>             members that is close to their members. In that way, civil
>>>>             society MAG
>>>>             members will be able to provide a better report after the
>>>>             meeting.
>>>> 
>>>>             All the best, Katitza
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>             ____________________________________________________________
>>>>             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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>         --
>>>>         Katitza Rodriguez
>>>>         International Rights Director
>>>>         Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>>         katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>>>>         katitza at datos-personales.org
>>>>         <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org> (personal email)
>>>> 
>>>>         Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>>>>         freedom of speech since 1990
>>>> 
>>>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>              governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> <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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>     --
>>>>     Katitza Rodriguez
>>>>     International Rights Director
>>>>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>>     katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>>>>     katitza at datos-personales.org <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org>
>>>>     (personal email)
>>>> 
>>>>     Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>>>>     freedom of speech since 1990
>>>> 
>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>        governance at lists.cpsr.org <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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>>>> FGV Direito Rio
>>>> 
>>>> Center for Technology and Society
>>>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>>>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>>> 
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>> www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109
>> > south africa
>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 24 19:12:07 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:12:07 +1200
Subject: [governance] Invitation to Cyber Security Workshop 26th - 27th May
 2011 Webcast / IP Streaming
Message-ID: <BANLkTikxY__A3xe2-EQVNnk4GgkRSQKapg@mail.gmail.com>

To:

(1) Diplo Foundation Community
(2) Internet Governance Caucus and Community
(3)Congress World Breakthrough Network Oceania
(4)Pacific Internet Governance Community;
(5)PACNOG;
(6) Pakistan Telecommunications Authority;
(7) Pacific Islands Private Sector Organisation.



It is with great pleasure that I invite you to stream into the
Inaugural Fiji Government Cyber Security Workshop organised by the
Ministry of Defence in collaboration with the Cyber Security Working
Group. The Workshop will be held at the Novotel Hotel in Nadi from the
26th - 27th May, 2011.

 The Cyber Security Working Group is a multitstakeholder group. Fiji
as a developing country has yet to have a National Strategy in place
and this is part of a series of Workshops that will be a lead up to
preparing its National Strategy in the near future.

You may view the workshop through this link: itv.connect.com.fj

The streaming is made possible through the generous sponsorship of
Telecom Fiji Limited in partnership with Fiji TV.

The draft programme is enclosed and is in FJT (GMT +12), The
organisers reserve the discretion to amend various aspects of the
Programme.

Kind Regards,

Chair of Fiji Cyber Security Working Group
-- 
Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Fiji Cyber Security Workshop Programme 23. 5. 11.doc Version 2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 61952 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110525/9baf6683/attachment.doc>

From ocl at gih.com  Tue May 24 19:22:37 2011
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 01:22:37 +0200
Subject: [governance] Statement of the ALAC on the eG8 Forum
Message-ID: <4DDC3DBD.7070609@gih.com>

Dear all,

Please find enclosed, for your information, the public statement of the
ALAC on the eG8 Forum, sent to the organisers of the Forum. This
statement was ratified by the ALAC on 24 May 2011.
Kind regards,

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To 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: ALAC Statement on eG8 Forum_ver 3_FR.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 84358 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110525/0c36d197/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ALAC Statement on eG8 Forum_ver 3_EN.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 75603 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110525/0c36d197/attachment-0001.pdf>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue May 24 19:53:13 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 06:53:13 +0700
Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <CA01DE71.21218%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <B97535D24829433AB1D5ECAC3B6AA468@userPC>

Who is the host for next year's meeting?

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of Divina MEIGS
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:15 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] : e-G8 forum
Importance: High


Thanks Avri, the feedback has been good and the message has been sent across
for next year :-)  It seems Pr. Schwab, organizer of Davos, would favour
"co-design" which is a venue we might want to pursue in our free time...

Le monde online has published our open letter, by the way, and there will be
a paper on the eG8 tomorrow in the paper paper... I'll post my first
impressions on the first day early tomorrow...

Best
divina 


Le 24/05/11 15:45, « Avri Doria » <avri at ella.com> a écrit :

> hi,
> 
> Thanks, and just in time to catch Divina speaking.
> 
> That was great.
> 
> Also, it interesting to think of Jimmy Wales & Wikipedia as Civil 
> Society.  I missed that point before.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 24 May 2011, at 04:44, Ian Peter wrote:
> 
>> There is a live stream and full program for e-G8 here
>> 
>> http://www.facebook.com/EG8Forum
>> 
>> Also twitter #eg8
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr>
>>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Divina MEIGS 
>>> <divina.meigs at orange.fr>
>>> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 06:21:49 +0200
>>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> I have been waiting official confirmation until the last minute ... 
>>> And it seems I will be able to attend the e-G8 forum. I should make 
>>> it clear that it is not upon the invitation of the French government 
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> In any case, considering the situation and the programme, I am not 
>>> sure there will be opportunities to speak much, but I will try to do 
>>> some reporting back on major exchanges...
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> Divina
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


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

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

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

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 24 20:13:50 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 08:13:50 +0800
Subject: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
In-Reply-To: <C728A499-0C03-4C50-B0AF-B798FF483430@ella.com>
References: <4DDB5BE2.60102@apc.org> <p06240818ca012b9467f4@[192.168.1.160]> <4DDB871B.3080908@eff.org> <p0624081bca013f25fdfc@[192.168.1.160]> <4DDBAA00.4010000@eff.org> <C728A499-0C03-4C50-B0AF-B798FF483430@ella.com>
Message-ID: <C527FAF7-FF50-4C90-9C08-5B6CCEC5E26E@ciroap.org>

On 25/05/2011, at 6:59 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> One thing to do, once we get the list of remaining members you have asked for many times is to create  a nomcom to put together a list of people to suggest.    Why wait for them to ask?
> 
> In fact since it takes weeks to get a nomcom going, it might be time to start setting one up.

Will do.  Anticipating an earlier MAG renewal, we had lined this job up for the existing nomcom (who did the CSTD working group and the appeal team).  But with the delay, there's no reason not to appoint a fresh nomcom now.

If you would like to serve on the nominating committee, please put forward your name, preferably by email to me and/or Izumi, to reduce list noise.  I will post a reminder in a week.

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

Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. 
www.consumersinternational.org
Twitter @Consumers_Int

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

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

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed May 25 00:45:52 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 07:45:52 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <99A6ACE6-DF88-4242-9891-253F9C2B502D@post.harvard.edu>
References: <CA01AD1F.19171%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <99A6ACE6-DF88-4242-9891-253F9C2B502D@post.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimp3B7pyduTPM643cMsEPW69zkAVA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 7:58 PM, David Allen
<David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Whoo-hoo.  John Perry Barlow on a panel - about intellectual property rights
> - with four heads of media companies and the cognizant French minister.
>
> A hornet's nest buzzing like that rarely seen, Barlow stirred up.  Most
> certainly rare at this stratospheric level.  Perhaps eG8 will offer an
> archive.  The fun started from about 18:00 GMT+2, for perhaps :45 minutes.


am looking for it at http://www.eg8forum.com/en/videos/

Which Plenary was it?


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From divina.meigs at orange.fr  Wed May 25 01:07:12 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 07:07:12 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimp3B7pyduTPM643cMsEPW69zkAVA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA025B20.21251%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

The plenary on IP, last of the day... The only fun moment but also a
"dialogue de sourds" not advancing anything in the end...  Frustrating
divina


Le 25/05/11 06:45, « McTim » <dogwallah at gmail.com> a écrit :

> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 7:58 PM, David Allen
> <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> Whoo-hoo.  John Perry Barlow on a panel - about intellectual property rights
>> - with four heads of media companies and the cognizant French minister.
>> 
>> A hornet's nest buzzing like that rarely seen, Barlow stirred up.  Most
>> certainly rare at this stratospheric level.  Perhaps eG8 will offer an
>> archive.  The fun started from about 18:00 GMT+2, for perhaps :45 minutes.
> 
> 
> am looking for it at http://www.eg8forum.com/en/videos/
> 
> Which Plenary was it?
> 


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

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

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


From divina.meigs at orange.fr  Wed May 25 01:37:33 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 07:37:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <B97535D24829433AB1D5ECAC3B6AA468@userPC>
Message-ID: <CA02623D.21254%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Guess what... : the USA
divina


Le 25/05/11 01:53, « Michael Gurstein » <gurstein at gmail.com> a écrit :

> Who is the host for next year's meeting?
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
> Of Divina MEIGS
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:15 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [governance] : e-G8 forum
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> Thanks Avri, the feedback has been good and the message has been sent across
> for next year :-)  It seems Pr. Schwab, organizer of Davos, would favour
> "co-design" which is a venue we might want to pursue in our free time...
> 
> Le monde online has published our open letter, by the way, and there will be
> a paper on the eG8 tomorrow in the paper paper... I'll post my first
> impressions on the first day early tomorrow...
> 
> Best
> divina 
> 
> 
> Le 24/05/11 15:45, « Avri Doria » <avri at ella.com> a écrit :
> 
>> hi,
>> 
>> Thanks, and just in time to catch Divina speaking.
>> 
>> That was great.
>> 
>> Also, it interesting to think of Jimmy Wales & Wikipedia as Civil
>> Society.  I missed that point before.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 24 May 2011, at 04:44, Ian Peter wrote:
>> 
>>> There is a live stream and full program for e-G8 here
>>> 
>>> http://www.facebook.com/EG8Forum
>>> 
>>> Also twitter #eg8
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> From: Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr>
>>>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Divina MEIGS
>>>> <divina.meigs at orange.fr>
>>>> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 06:21:49 +0200
>>>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>> Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
>>>> 
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> I have been waiting official confirmation until the last minute ...
>>>> And it seems I will be able to attend the e-G8 forum. I should make
>>>> it clear that it is not upon the invitation of the French government
>>>> ...
>>>> 
>>>> In any case, considering the situation and the programme, I am not
>>>> sure there will be opportunities to speak much, but I will try to do
>>>> some reporting back on major exchanges...
>>>> 
>>>> Best
>>>> Divina
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 25 02:16:50 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 07:16:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <B97535D24829433AB1D5ECAC3B6AA468@userPC>
References: <CA01DE71.21218%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
 <B97535D24829433AB1D5ECAC3B6AA468@userPC>
Message-ID: <chouKnFS7J3NFA2t@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <B97535D24829433AB1D5ECAC3B6AA468 at userPC>, at 06:53:13 on 
Wed, 25 May 2011, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> writes

>Who is the host for next year's meeting?

According to Wikipedia:

"Each calendar year, the responsibility of hosting the G8 rotates 
through the member states in the following order: France, United States, 
United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada."
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Wed May 25 02:32:07 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 08:32:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] Comments on CSTD WG in IGF improvements, May 2011
In-Reply-To: <C728A499-0C03-4C50-B0AF-B798FF483430@ella.com>
References: <4DDB5BE2.60102@apc.org> <p06240818ca012b9467f4@[192.168.1.160]> <4DDB871B.3080908@eff.org> <p0624081bca013f25fdfc@[192.168.1.160]> <4DDBAA00.4010000@eff.org> <C728A499-0C03-4C50-B0AF-B798FF483430@ella.com>
Message-ID: <4DDCA267.8080408@eff.org>

Good idea for the coordinators to move ahead!

On 5/25/11 12:59 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One thing to do, once we get the list of remaining members you have asked for many times is to create  a nomcom to put together a list of people to suggest.    Why wait for them to ask?
>
> In fact since it takes weeks to get a nomcom going, it might be time to start setting one up.
>
> a.
>
>
> On 24 May 2011, at 08:52, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> Dear Adam,
>>
>> Thank you very much for raising this issue. Yes, I strongly agree that civil society MAG members are currently under represented, and will continue to be until those civil society slots in the MAGs are being filled out. This is something we have been working on. I will report about any advance we can do on this regards.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Katitza
>>
>>
>> On 5/24/11 1:18 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>> Dear Adam,
>>>>
>>>> On 5/24/11 12:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>>> Section 2.  I don't understand the reasoning behind the timeline, isn't a report required before March 2012?  (when will ECOSOC/GA need to think about the IGF again?)  But the items make sense. Except perhaps involving the MAG which unless formally renewed and repopulated (Catch 22?) isn't really in a state to be a partner in a consultation.
>>>> Can you elaborate your point re: MAG? MAG is not repopulated, either? Are they?
>>>
>>> Katitza, hi.
>>>
>>> Just to be clear, I was referring to Anriette's email and suggestion that the CSTD working group on IGF improvements:
>>>
>>> At 9:18 AM +0200 5/24/11, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>> - have meeting focused on IGF improvements with the MAG during the
>>>> November 2011 open consultation
>>>
>>> You mentioned there had been a letter from Mr. Sha, "extending an invitation to all present MAG members to continue their work until the conclusion of the 2011 IGF meeting in Nairobi."  But it doesn't seem extend the MAG's function beyond Nairobi, which is September. And Mr Sha hasn't replaced members who have left, quite a number from civil society. Even if there was a MAG in November, it would probably be lacking in civil society members so you guys remaining would be at a disadvantage (again) in discussions.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Katitza Rodriguez
>>>> International Rights Director
>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>> katitza at eff.org
>>>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>>>
>>>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> International Rights Director
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> katitza at eff.org
>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>
>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 25 02:32:00 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 14:32:00 +0800
Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <chouKnFS7J3NFA2t@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CA01DE71.21218%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <B97535D24829433AB1D5ECAC3B6AA468@userPC> <chouKnFS7J3NFA2t@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <4DDCA260.6080802@ciroap.org>

On 25/05/11 14:16, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <B97535D24829433AB1D5ECAC3B6AA468 at userPC>, at 06:53:13 on
> Wed, 25 May 2011, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> writes
>
>> Who is the host for next year's meeting?
>
> According to Wikipedia:
>
> "Each calendar year, the responsibility of hosting the G8 rotates
> through the member states in the following order: France, United
> States, United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada."

We could go further than we have, and argue that there should be no e-G8
next year, even if it were opened to broader participation, since it is
duplicative and it distracts attention from other fora in which civil
society's resources are already thinly enough spread.

-- 

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

Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups
that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent
and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member
organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
_www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org/>_
_Twitter @ConsumersInt <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int>_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110525/42594e38/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110525/42594e38/attachment.bin>

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Wed May 25 03:01:51 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 08:01:51 +0100
Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <4DDCA260.6080802@ciroap.org>
References: <CA01DE71.21218%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
 <B97535D24829433AB1D5ECAC3B6AA468@userPC>
 <chouKnFS7J3NFA2t@internetpolicyagency.com> <4DDCA260.6080802@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <xx7l+rKflK3NFACx@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4DDCA260.6080802 at ciroap.org>, at 14:32:00 on Wed, 25 May
2011, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> writes
>We could go further than we have, and argue that there should be no e-
>G8 next year,

Now you mention it, I wonder if it's even planned to have another e-G8?

It's a feeder into a main topic later in the week (with "Internet" being
one of France's "Common Challenges" (see "Priorities for France" Tab):

<http://www.g20-g8.com/g8-g20/g8/english/-fiches/the-internet-new-
challenges.420.html>

And perhaps there won't be an Internet-related main topic next year.

Last year the summit was about the Economy and International Relations
and the final declaration doesn't mention Internet at all.

>even if it were opened to broader participation, since it is
>duplicative and it distracts attention from other fora in which civil
>society's resources are already thinly enough spread

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

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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed May 25 03:22:04 2011
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 17:22:04 +1000
Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <4DDCA260.6080802@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CA02EB3C.19228%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Not sure that I would argue about abandoning e-G8 ­ I think its quite useful
if imbalanced, and is opening up some lines of communication with some
excellent interventions and some good attendees.

I¹d rather discuss how we could make IGF as relevant by attracting the same
calibre of attendees. IGF government attendees are usually way down the
picking line; the business reps are not quite CEOs of large players such as
Paypal, Google and Facebook ­ and similarly our civil society reps are not
quite Jimmy Wales, John Perry Barlow etc.

In other words, IGF has failed to attract high profile opinion leaders. If
it continues as a second rate forum it will probably just fade away and
no-one will notice. Which would be a pity ­ IGF is far more balanced,
strives to achieve global and balanced inputs, and could be a really
relevant and useful vehicle.

>From our point of view, I am interested in how we can strengthen our inputs
by involving and communicating with some of the higher profile civil society
people who are not so involved with us at present.

Ian Peter



From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Organization: Consumers International
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 14:32:00 +0800
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Roland Perry
<roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] :   e-G8 forum

   On 25/05/11 14:16, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <B97535D24829433AB1D5ECAC3B6AA468 at userPC>, at 06:53:13 on Wed, 25
> May 2011, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
> writes 
>  
>  
>> Who is the host for next year's meeting?
>>  
>  
>  According to Wikipedia:
>  
>  "Each calendar year, the responsibility of hosting the G8 rotates through the
> member states in the following order: France, United States, United Kingdom,
> Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada."
>  
 
 We could go further than we have, and argue that there should be no e-G8
next year, even if it were opened to broader participation, since it is
duplicative and it distracts attention from other fora in which civil
society's resources are already thinly enough spread.
 
 
-- 
 

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

Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups
that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and
authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations
in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help
protect and empower consumers everywhere.
 www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org/>
 Twitter @ConsumersInt <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int>
 
 Read our  email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
this email unless necessary.
 
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110525/eb67726f/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 divina.meigs at orange.fr  Wed May 25 03:31:10 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 09:31:10 +0200
Subject: [governance] E-G8 forum: quick reporting on day 1
In-Reply-To: <xx7l+rKflK3NFACx@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <CA027CDE.2126D%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Dear collegues
 
Please find below a few elements of yesterday¹s sessions at e-G8, with most
of the focus on Sarkozy¹s speech, for reasons that you¹ll understand as I
think it starts a new era of government involvement. I will not go into the
details, only on what I think was his agenda:
-he announced an E-G8 every year, because Internet is now in a phase of
maturity that implies governments have ³responsibility in preserving the
promise of the origins² i.e. openness and universal values. He referred to
human rights values and to their importance as to democracy
-he confirmed the French position on IP rights and Hadopi law
            -he acknowledged that Internet is transborders and that this
calls for ³harmonisation of positions in an international context² and
mentioned the possibility of taking the proceedings to G20 and from there to
the General Assembly of the  UN
            -he sees the role of the e-G8 very much in the same context as
the national CNN (Conseil National du Numérique, composed only of business):
create a space for business and states to start a conversation, but not a
real advisory body and not multi-stakeholder.
             
Some analysts and most of the press have decided that the thrust of his
message was the moralization of internet (after a question from our
colleague at CUNY, asking that governments ³do no harm², meaning no
regulation), but that was not the message he wanted to send the business
community, even though he did address issues of hate speech, children¹s
protection and state security.
 
In his personal agenda, Sarkozy wanted to send several ³friendly² messages
to business:
-governments are back and as they pay for infrastructure and higher
education, they have a say in the matter (a prick at ICANN?)
-Europe is back and California-based Hollyweb corporations should realize
that if they don¹t pay taxes and don¹t give back some of the advertising
money to G8 countries and their national businesses, the governments might
move to some international treaty on internet governance.  It is a credible
threat (Council of Europe, OEDC are thinking about it), except that, of
course, none of the G20 countries want to open the debate so much and that
China remains an itchy, but India and Brazil could be ralliedŠ
-in view of recent events, on foreign policy matters, governments shift from
a position of stability to one of intervention, so as not to be overwhelmed
by their citizens and by the pressure of big corporations (see Google¹s and
Orange¹s role in Tunisia and Egypt).
 
That¹s why I think the e-G8 will continue and we have to expect policy
coming out of this arenaŠ also the recommendations are already written and
sent to G8 in Deauville (officious information), which means that the rest
of the 2 days are just a way for big business to settle their positions more
clearly but without any impact from this event on the G8
 
 
 
 
 
My perception about the other sessions:
-1- session on economic growth: the usual ³bras de fer² between telcos and
content providers, with a focus on how to allow small businesses to go
global; emphasis on the use of big platforms, especially in developing
countries (Africa and banks, on Indian model); E-public services only
mentioned for productivity enhancement
 
-2- session on Internet and society: balance between revenue and investment,
mobiles as a way of changing business at local and global level (daily deals
and impulse satisfaction); equal access to internet as means of creating
jobs and growth; ³terms of service² not really seen as a problem and
business self-regulation can solve it (but suggestion from the floor that
Wikipedia to have a ³just prior to your consent² type of sectionŠ
 
This is where is was able to make a statement on behalf of our community :
I first stated that there was a sore missing of civil society
representatives on the podiums and sessions, if not in the room, insisting
also on the absence of gender parity (5 women over the full 2 days) and of
youth (much touted by everybody). Then I proceeded to ask 2 questions: how
did they consider multi-stakeholderism in the light of co-regulation of the
internet? And how they could ensure that human-rights are part of such a
design from the start?
The answer about women was fudged (the 5 women are worth so many more men
basically!); the idea of more civil society participation would be taken to
Deauville and taken into account for next e-G8s; and Schwab was the only one
to pick up on the rest of the issues, by suggesting ³co-design²
 
3-Special talk by Rupert Murdoch on education: no comment (but hard to take,
this said from somebody who cares)
 
-4-session on the future of the internet: internet as a ³fait accompli²,
part of our DNA; internet of objects is our future, and raises the issue of
³what does the internet do to me²; serious thinking is needed about what
happens if internet breaks down;  utmost personalization of data, and
therefore ³privacy is over²; need for better and stronger infrastructure to
face ³data tsunami²
 
-5- session on IP rights: protection of authors and creators necessary for
the market; Hadopi works (!); voluntary agreements to stem illegal
downloads.
This is where John Perry Barlow intervened by stating that IP was a break on
free speech on the internet, that the classical models of IP were obsolete,
that the right to know and to satisfy curiosity should be stronger than
control, and that starting to control IP leads to other types of control.
The controversy continued with the floor, as the Quadrature du Net
intervened and made a statement in support of Barlow¹s approachŠ The issue
was in fact very muddled and I had a strong feeling of regression in
relation to this discussion in other fora
 
My general impression: not a balanced meeting at all.   But very big voice
of business in a way that we had lost in WSIS and sequel ... and a
regression on multi-stakeholderism

Best
divina


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Wed May 25 04:38:59 2011
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 10:38:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] US Promotes Multilateral System Of Internet Governance
 In Geneva
In-Reply-To: <4DDAF427.3060400@eff.org>
References: <4DDAF427.3060400@eff.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinVww6_+3TiKEhCEFkDdLW9z1povg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

>
> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/05/24/us-promotes-multilateral-system-of-internet-governance/?utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts
>
> Betty King, United States Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, has declared US
> support for a multilateral system of internet governance and an open
> internet.
> [..]
>

Betty King's declaration is a good example of double talk, aping Chinese gov
style.
- - -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110525/d7720598/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  Wed May 25 05:42:14 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:42:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF Improvements Working Group extended for a
 period of one year.
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=PrnAXoAh7jG=Y+ohf9ocgEwG-Eg@mail.gmail.com>

Just an update from the CSTD third day in Geneva, CSTD has resolved to
extend the CSTD IGF Working Group till the 15th Session of the CSTD
Session next year.
Now the draft resolution negotiations are being prepared in the room
number 27 and will work throughout the day with of course lunch break
from 1pm - 3 pm and then work till 6pm.

The negotiation on draft resolution is open to observers but observers
cannot intervene here.

The CSTD IGF Improvements Working Group is still not open to
observers, I wonder if they would want to decide to take such a route
themselves in the near future when they decide to have their meeting
again.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 25 05:45:19 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:45:19 +0200
Subject: [governance] E-G8 forum & Follow Up
References: <CA027CDE.2126D%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C035@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Thanks so much Divina,
 
this is very helpful and fits into recent developments in other areas: Obamas International Strategy for Cyberspace, OECD and COE Draft for Internet Governance Principles, GACs battle with the ICANN Board on the new gTLD Programm, the IBSA Proposal in the UN, NATO activities like the establishment of the Cybersecurity Center in Tallin and the controversial debates around the future of the IGF in the CSTD/ECOSOC. I expect that the forthcoming 66th Session of the UN General Assembly will mirror those trends and we will see hot debates both in the 1st Committee (security, disarmement and arms control) as well as in the 2nd Committee (social and economc issues). 
 
All this challenges CS and the IGC. Probably we have to re-mobilize and re-vitalize the WSIS working methods among CS. In WSIS (between 2002 and 2005) we had the Open Plenary, the Content&Themes Group and 20+ working groups and caucuses, the IGC was one of them. And we had the CS bureau as an interlocutor to the other stakeholders, in particular to the intergovernmental buerau. I do not propose to re-create all those bodies, but what we certainly need is a more formalized structure and more communication and coordination among the various activities to speak with one (diversified) CS voice. This includes a clear understanding what CS wants to add to the process, what the CS wants to achieve and what our priorities are. Human Rights, as mentioned in your statement, is certainly number one. Development probably number 2. Anyhow we have to use clear arguments to demonstrate that a government-business PPP (as proposed by Sarkozy) will fail if they exclude the voices of the individual Internet users and the people on the ground. 
 
A good opportunity to "strategize" will be certainly the IGF in Nairobi, where we have a number of workshops which would allow such a discussion. This is also a good time to discuss how to contribute to the UNGA discussion (which starts in October in New York) and what to do with regard to the G 20 (early November in Cannes). 
 
If the US has the next G8 presidency, than this is a good opportunity to test the will of the US government to work in a multistakeholder spirit. Among the ten principles, the Obama-Paper is listing (p.10), we have also "Multi-Stakeholder Governance" which is described as "Internet Governance efforts must not be limited to governments, but should include all appropriate stakeholders." More detailed is Section 3.5 of the Obama-Paper: "The US stands firm in our conviction that when the internaitonal community meets to discuss the range of Internet governance issues, these conversations must take place in a multi-stakeholder manner". And it adds: "We will continue to support succesful venues like the IGF which embodies the open and inclusive nature of the Internet itself by allowing nongovernmental stakeholders to contribute to the discussion on equal footing with government." BTW, 2012 is an election year in the US :-)))).
 
Best regards
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Divina MEIGS
Gesendet: Mi 25.05.2011 09:31
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: [governance] E-G8 forum: quick reporting on day 1



Dear collegues

Please find below a few elements of yesterday¹s sessions at e-G8, with most
of the focus on Sarkozy¹s speech, for reasons that you¹ll understand as I
think it starts a new era of government involvement. I will not go into the
details, only on what I think was his agenda:
-he announced an E-G8 every year, because Internet is now in a phase of
maturity that implies governments have ³responsibility in preserving the
promise of the origins² i.e. openness and universal values. He referred to
human rights values and to their importance as to democracy
-he confirmed the French position on IP rights and Hadopi law
            -he acknowledged that Internet is transborders and that this
calls for ³harmonisation of positions in an international context² and
mentioned the possibility of taking the proceedings to G20 and from there to
the General Assembly of the  UN
            -he sees the role of the e-G8 very much in the same context as
the national CNN (Conseil National du Numérique, composed only of business):
create a space for business and states to start a conversation, but not a
real advisory body and not multi-stakeholder.
            
Some analysts and most of the press have decided that the thrust of his
message was the moralization of internet (after a question from our
colleague at CUNY, asking that governments ³do no harm², meaning no
regulation), but that was not the message he wanted to send the business
community, even though he did address issues of hate speech, children¹s
protection and state security.

In his personal agenda, Sarkozy wanted to send several ³friendly² messages
to business:
-governments are back and as they pay for infrastructure and higher
education, they have a say in the matter (a prick at ICANN?)
-Europe is back and California-based Hollyweb corporations should realize
that if they don¹t pay taxes and don¹t give back some of the advertising
money to G8 countries and their national businesses, the governments might
move to some international treaty on internet governance.  It is a credible
threat (Council of Europe, OEDC are thinking about it), except that, of
course, none of the G20 countries want to open the debate so much and that
China remains an itchy, but India and Brazil could be ralliedS
-in view of recent events, on foreign policy matters, governments shift from
a position of stability to one of intervention, so as not to be overwhelmed
by their citizens and by the pressure of big corporations (see Google¹s and
Orange¹s role in Tunisia and Egypt).

That¹s why I think the e-G8 will continue and we have to expect policy
coming out of this arenaS also the recommendations are already written and
sent to G8 in Deauville (officious information), which means that the rest
of the 2 days are just a way for big business to settle their positions more
clearly but without any impact from this event on the G8





My perception about the other sessions:
-1- session on economic growth: the usual ³bras de fer² between telcos and
content providers, with a focus on how to allow small businesses to go
global; emphasis on the use of big platforms, especially in developing
countries (Africa and banks, on Indian model); E-public services only
mentioned for productivity enhancement

-2- session on Internet and society: balance between revenue and investment,
mobiles as a way of changing business at local and global level (daily deals
and impulse satisfaction); equal access to internet as means of creating
jobs and growth; ³terms of service² not really seen as a problem and
business self-regulation can solve it (but suggestion from the floor that
Wikipedia to have a ³just prior to your consent² type of sectionS

This is where is was able to make a statement on behalf of our community :
I first stated that there was a sore missing of civil society
representatives on the podiums and sessions, if not in the room, insisting
also on the absence of gender parity (5 women over the full 2 days) and of
youth (much touted by everybody). Then I proceeded to ask 2 questions: how
did they consider multi-stakeholderism in the light of co-regulation of the
internet? And how they could ensure that human-rights are part of such a
design from the start?
The answer about women was fudged (the 5 women are worth so many more men
basically!); the idea of more civil society participation would be taken to
Deauville and taken into account for next e-G8s; and Schwab was the only one
to pick up on the rest of the issues, by suggesting ³co-design²

3-Special talk by Rupert Murdoch on education: no comment (but hard to take,
this said from somebody who cares)

-4-session on the future of the internet: internet as a ³fait accompli²,
part of our DNA; internet of objects is our future, and raises the issue of
³what does the internet do to me²; serious thinking is needed about what
happens if internet breaks down;  utmost personalization of data, and
therefore ³privacy is over²; need for better and stronger infrastructure to
face ³data tsunami²

-5- session on IP rights: protection of authors and creators necessary for
the market; Hadopi works (!); voluntary agreements to stem illegal
downloads.
This is where John Perry Barlow intervened by stating that IP was a break on
free speech on the internet, that the classical models of IP were obsolete,
that the right to know and to satisfy curiosity should be stronger than
control, and that starting to control IP leads to other types of control.
The controversy continued with the floor, as the Quadrature du Net
intervened and made a statement in support of Barlow¹s approachS The issue
was in fact very muddled and I had a strong feeling of regression in
relation to this discussion in other fora

My general impression: not a balanced meeting at all.   But very big voice
of business in a way that we had lost in WSIS and sequel ... and a
regression on multi-stakeholderism

Best
divina


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

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

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



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

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

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


From nb at bollow.ch  Wed May 25 06:09:32 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 12:09:32 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF Improvements Working Group extended for a
 period of one year.
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=PrnAXoAh7jG=Y+ohf9ocgEwG-Eg@mail.gmail.com> (message
	from Fouad Bajwa on Wed, 25 May 2011 11:42:14 +0200)
References: <BANLkTi=PrnAXoAh7jG=Y+ohf9ocgEwG-Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110525100932.4B23015C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

> Just an update from the CSTD third day in Geneva, CSTD has resolved to
> extend the CSTD IGF Working Group till the 15th Session of the CSTD
> Session next year.

A key question is who will chair it. I've heard from the Swiss
government side that they're not interested in the role anymore.

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

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

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Wed May 25 06:13:40 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 12:13:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF Improvements Working Group extended for a
 period of one year.
In-Reply-To: <20110525100932.4B23015C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <BANLkTi=PrnAXoAh7jG=Y+ohf9ocgEwG-Eg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110525100932.4B23015C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=p2D+rUXd0J=fjAOCJ78nJ=Z2EdQ@mail.gmail.com>

Well lets see what this negotiation group decides.

Give it some time ;o)

FoO

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> Just an update from the CSTD third day in Geneva, CSTD has resolved to
>> extend the CSTD IGF Working Group till the 15th Session of the CSTD
>> Session next year.
>
> A key question is who will chair it. I've heard from the Swiss
> government side that they're not interested in the role anymore.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Wed May 25 08:18:45 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 13:18:45 +0100
Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF Improvements Working Group extended for a
 period of one year.
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=PrnAXoAh7jG=Y+ohf9ocgEwG-Eg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=PrnAXoAh7jG=Y+ohf9ocgEwG-Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <XRVsWcelOP3NFA17@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <BANLkTi=PrnAXoAh7jG=Y+ohf9ocgEwG-Eg at mail.gmail.com>, at 
11:42:14 on Wed, 25 May 2011, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> writes
>The negotiation on draft resolution is open to observers but observers
>cannot intervene here.

That has been the way CSTD conducted their affairs in the past.

>The CSTD IGF Improvements Working Group is still not open to
>observers, I wonder if they would want to decide to take such a route
>themselves in the near future when they decide to have their meeting
>again.

Perhaps someone should find a friendly government to suggest that 
(interventions don't always have to be at first hand).
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 25 08:21:38 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 13:21:38 +0100
Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF Improvements Working Group extended for a
 period of one year.
In-Reply-To: <20110525100932.4B23015C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <BANLkTi=PrnAXoAh7jG=Y+ohf9ocgEwG-Eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110525100932.4B23015C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <Vh4sKrfSRP3NFAXd@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <20110525100932.4B23015C0DF at quill.bollow.ch>, at 12:09:32 on 
Wed, 25 May 2011, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
>> Just an update from the CSTD third day in Geneva, CSTD has resolved to
>> extend the CSTD IGF Working Group till the 15th Session of the CSTD
>> Session next year.
>
>A key question is who will chair it. I've heard from the Swiss
>government side that they're not interested in the role anymore.

There are several CSTD vice-chairs, three of whom haven't had this role 
before:

Mr. Alvaro Galvani (Brazil)
Mr. Fortunato de la Peña (Philippines)
Mr. Štef an Morávek (Slovakia )
Mr. Frédéric Riehl (Switzerland
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed May 25 10:11:35 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 21:11:35 +0700
Subject: [governance] Dutch will enshrine net neutrality in telecom law
Message-ID: <718E4A12BD1944CFAC4FB690708CC075@userPC>

 
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:05 PM
Subject: Dutch will enshrine net neutrality in telecom law


hereby the press release, translated, with comments in italics.  


Guarantee for a free internet in the telecommunications law

The Telecommunications law will be changed to guarantee a free (unobstructed
RB) access to the internet. Minister Verhagen, Minister of Economic Affairs,
Agriculture and Innovation announced this in the second chamber of
parliament on Tuesday May 24th. 

Skype and Whatsapp

Some providers of mobile internet had announced a surcharge for specific
services. This because of the needed investments in the network and the
decline in voice and sms-traffic. Minister Verhagen isn’t against paying for
the quantity or the speed of the data traffic.  The Cabinet (Council of
Ministers, including the prime minister RB) however is of the opinion that a
surcharge on specific services like Skype or Whatsapp goes too far. 

Netneutrality

Minister Verhagen will draft a proposal in the coming weeks to include this
in the telecommunications law. That means that the so called netneutrality
will be legally incorporated. The consumer can then entrust that specific
internet service on their mobile will not be additionally taxed or blocked
by mobile providers. The Second Chamber of Parliament had insisted on this
through the motion Bakhuizen (a motion is a request of the Second Chamber of
parliament on a minister or the cabinet to take action in a specific case,
often leaving the minister a bit of leeway in the way he executes the
motion. The motion was accepted by most parties in parliament, except one of
the ruling coalition’s parties, who weren’t against the idea of
netneutrality, but more concerned about the specific way it would be
implement RB)

European Union

Verhagen will also confer in the European Union about free access to
internet. The Netherlands is with this announced change in the law one of
the first countries in the world to guarantee free access to the internet in
law. 

 

 

Garantie vrij internet in telecomwet

Nieuwsbericht | 24-05-2011

De Telecomwet wordt gewijzigd om vrije toegang tot het internet te
garanderen. Dat maakte minister van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie
Verhagen dinsdag 24 mei 2011 bekend in de Tweede Kamer.

Skype en WhatsApp

Sommige providers van mobiel internet hadden een heffing aangekondigd voor
bepaalde diensten. Dit vanwege de benodigde investeringen in het netwerk en
het afnemende bel- en sms-verkeer. Minister Verhagen is niet tegen betaling
voor de hoeveelheid of de snelheid van het dataverkeer. Het kabinet vindt
een heffing op bepaalde diensten zoals Skype of WhatsApp echter te ver gaan.

Netneutraliteit

Minister Verhagen komt binnen enkele weken met een voorstel om dit op te
nemen in de Telecomwet. Daarmee wordt de zogeheten netneutraliteit wettelijk
vastgelegd. De consument kan er dan van op aan dat specifieke
internetdiensten op de mobiel niet extra door de providers worden belast of
geblokkeerd. De Tweede Kamer had daarop met de motie Braakhuizen al eerder
aangedrongen.

Europese Unie

Verhagen zal ook binnen de Europese Unie overleg voeren over vrije toegang
tot internet. Nederland is met de voorgenomen wetswijziging één van de
eerste landen in de wereld die de vrije toegang tot internet wettelijk
garandeert.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110525/4d9dc11f/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 bkuerbis at gmail.com  Wed May 25 10:46:17 2011
From: bkuerbis at gmail.com (Brenden Kuerbis)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 10:46:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] Dutch will enshrine net neutrality in telecom law
In-Reply-To: <718E4A12BD1944CFAC4FB690708CC075@userPC>
References: <718E4A12BD1944CFAC4FB690708CC075@userPC>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Cjw_GQPa1pb9JUgyHtJ=cXEtaVw@mail.gmail.com>

FYI, some related analysis on this:
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/5/23/4823153.html

Our Dutch colleague also mentions in the comments that NN was so strictly
defined in the proposed resolution that even basic practices of abuse
management (e.g., spam, botnets) are forbidden.



---------------------------------------
Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org


On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>  -----Original Message-----
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:05 PM
> *Subject:* Dutch will enshrine net neutrality in telecom law
>
> hereby the press release, translated, with comments in italics.
>
>  Guarantee for a free internet in the telecommunications law
>
> *The Telecommunications law will be changed to guarantee a free
> (unobstructed RB) access to the internet. Minister Verhagen, Minister of
> Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation announced this in the second
> chamber of parliament on Tuesday May 24th. *
>
> *Skype and Whatsapp*
>
> Some providers of mobile internet had announced a surcharge for specific
> services. This because of the needed investments in the network and the
> decline in voice and sms-traffic. Minister Verhagen isn’t against paying for
> the quantity or the speed of the data traffic.  The Cabinet *(Council of
> Ministers, including the prime minister RB)* however is of the opinion
> that a surcharge on specific services like Skype or Whatsapp goes too far.
>
> *Netneutrality***
>
> Minister Verhagen will draft a proposal in the coming weeks to include this
> in the telecommunications law. That means that the so called netneutrality
> will be legally incorporated. The consumer can then entrust that specific
> internet service on their mobile will not be additionally taxed or blocked
> by mobile providers. The Second Chamber of Parliament had insisted on this
> through the motion Bakhuizen *(a motion is a request of the Second Chamber
> of parliament on a minister or the cabinet to take action in a specific
> case, often leaving the minister a bit of leeway in the way he executes the
> motion. The motion was accepted by most parties in parliament, except one of
> the ruling coalition’s parties, who weren’t against the idea of
> netneutrality, but more concerned about the specific way it would be
> implement RB)*
>
> *European** **Union***
>
> Verhagen will also confer in the European Union about free access to
> internet. The Netherlands is with this announced change in the law one of
> the first countries in the world to guarantee free access to the internet in
> law.* *
>
>
>
>
>
> Garantie vrij internet in telecomwet
>
> Nieuwsbericht | 24-05-2011
>
> *De Telecomwet wordt gewijzigd om vrije toegang tot het internet te
> garanderen. Dat maakte minister van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie
> Verhagen dinsdag 24 mei 2011 bekend in de Tweede Kamer.*
>
> *Skype en WhatsApp*
>
> Sommige providers van mobiel internet hadden een heffing aangekondigd voor
> bepaalde diensten. Dit vanwege de benodigde investeringen in het netwerk en
> het afnemende bel- en sms-verkeer. Minister Verhagen is niet tegen betaling
> voor de hoeveelheid of de snelheid van het dataverkeer. Het kabinet vindt
> een heffing op bepaalde diensten zoals Skype of WhatsApp echter te ver gaan.
>
> *Netneutraliteit*
>
> Minister Verhagen komt binnen enkele weken met een voorstel om dit op te
> nemen in de Telecomwet. Daarmee wordt de zogeheten netneutraliteit wettelijk
> vastgelegd. De consument kan er dan van op aan dat specifieke
> internetdiensten op de mobiel niet extra door de providers worden belast of
> geblokkeerd. De Tweede Kamer had daarop met de motie Braakhuizen al eerder
> aangedrongen.
>
> *Europese Unie*
>
> Verhagen zal ook binnen de Europese Unie overleg voeren over vrije toegang
> tot internet. Nederland is met de voorgenomen wetswijziging één van de
> eerste landen in de wereld die de vrije toegang tot internet wettelijk
> garandeert.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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/20110525/1d8e67ad/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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com  Wed May 25 11:10:12 2011
From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:10:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF Improvements Working Group extended for a
 period of one year
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=fVp_kj3Nyu5yx7-=AYX_33TfC0g@mail.gmail.com>

That's great news Fouad and on a similar note and for those who may not have
been aware, the 2011 IGF6 website is up and running at http://igf.or.ke/

Best,

Tracy

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well lets see what this negotiation group decides.
>
> Give it some time ;o)
>
> FoO
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >> Just an update from the CSTD third day in Geneva, CSTD has resolved to
> >> extend the CSTD IGF Working Group till the 15th Session of the CSTD
> >> Session next year.
> >
> > A key question is who will chair it. I've heard from the Swiss
> > government side that they're not interested in the role anymore.
> >
> > 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/20110525/3127a62c/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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Wed May 25 11:13:41 2011
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:13:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] Towards Singapore
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <C9FE888B.21086%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <0E9B99D7-AB13-43D4-AC43-D605640BD0BD@post.harvard.edu>

Thanks to Wolfgang Kleinwächter for this delightful piece, more than  
that - artful, graceful, a key history for next thinking and a  
pleasure indeed!  Thanks.

May we also consider some alternative 'interpretations'?

For instance, from the piece -
> A new awareness among governments about their role in ICANN emerged  
> after the 2nd phase of the UN World Summit on the Information  
> Society (WSIS) which, more or less, recognized and strengthened the  
> ICANN model.


In fact, the WSIS summit process, supposed to focus on ICTs for  
development, was hijacked by a struggle, initially between the US and  
the rest of the world, for 'control of the Internet.'  This transpired  
from practically the beginning, even during the PrepComs for phase one.

If we take a broader, longer historical view, on the contest - ITU as  
responsible, vis-a-vis the Internet, versus a liberalized approach  
championed in the US -, that struggle had been well under way before  
WSIS even emerged.  WSIS, from the early stages, only presented a  
platform, seized for ongoing volleys in the matter.

Yes, states that previously had not had their consciousness raised on  
the subject then began to put the matter more forward on their radar.   
But the states who cared about the question - among them, some of  
those powerful in their regions - were already active; WSIS became the  
grounds to take the conflict next steps.


As to the larger issue(s) at stake, for instance high noon in  
Singapore (but we can't ignore, noon in Singapore is only one marker  
in a long time series, not just a moment 'now') - let's break this  
down, into three pieces.


1  As said, the contest, long at play, has been, 'who is in [some]  
driver's seat.'  For the Internet.  Power, and where it lies, are  
always part of questions in stakes such as those here.  Even when  
lambs and lions may make quarters together for some period.

Will states really feel comfortable, going down the road, with, as the  
piece describes, a:

> private sector leadership model ?


The piece notes,
> If the GAC would move into a position to dictate to the ICANN Board  
> what to do, this would mean the end of the multi-stakeholder model


ICANN is not even the central locale, wherein this (fundamental)  
matter will be resolved.  As events the end of last year made clear,  
other vectors, in international affairs - non-private - have the long- 
standing questions front and center, of who will be responsible.


2  But let's take up the case, that ICANN be considered for locus, to  
handle Internet governance on its topics.  As the piece says, as:

> an internationalized mechanism as an experiment and an innovation  
> into the political landscape to preserve the bottom-up dynamics of  
> [ ] Internet development


Where multi-stakeholderism is a cornerstone innovation, again from the  
piece,

> Multi-stakeholderism can be best describe[d] by a circle. In the  
> multi-stakeholder model there is no formal hierarchy. All partners  
> are needed and have to make a contribution according to their  
> specific role. There is an interdependence among the various  
> stakeholders. One can’t live without the other.



2a  This and other such descriptions, IMHO, lack actionable substance  
- there is no 'there' there.  While most admirable in aspiration, the  
pronouncements so far on multi-stakeholderism do not get beyond  
aspiration.  The ideals are lofty, but devoid of operable  
particulars.  For outcomes, at least IMHO, there must be some  
substance, both as to an outline for a new arrangement, then concrete  
particulars for roles, process et al. - but most especially, something  
agreed to, or that can be agreed to, by the usual suspects.

Bill Drake, in the WSIS Forum just finished, convened a discussion  
that seemed aimed to engender much-needed quality dialog on the  
subject (have not had a chance to listen, but will surely do so).   
Until there is some meat on those bones, those who have an eye can see  
why individuals, in relevant positions, will not be prepared to hand  
over serious authority to such an arrangement.  And why other venues  
will likely decide the outcomes, which may eventuate in yet 'other  
venues.'

That is so, certainly and most particularly, when one main venue for  
multi-stakeholderism has persistent difficulties making its own  
machinery work.  Anyway, as repeated observations about IGC itself, on  
the list, would indicate.  IGC would - otherwise, one would think - be  
necessary as showpiece and be 'exhibit one' for the 'ism.'

Fortuitously,  Wolfgang Kleinwächter begins to address just this need,  
in the recent response (today 25 May) to Divina Meigs' e-G8 reporting:

> Probably we have to re-mobilize and re-vitalize the WSIS working  
> methods among CS. ... what we certainly need is a more formalized  
> structure and more communication and coordination among the various  
> activities to speak with one (diversified) CS voice. This includes a  
> clear understanding what CS wants to add to the process, what the CS  
> wants to achieve and what our priorities are.



2b  Continuing with the third item.  The 'high noon' piece speaks of,

> an environment of mutual trust

It points to the objective:

> putting aside individual interest and serving the public

What are the facts, as we consider if ICANN may be the paradigm for  
such Internet governance?

Despite all pretensions to the contrary, ICANN has served narrow  
interests, particularly the financial interests of that small handful  
who provide much of its funding.  The topic is usually taboo.  But  
more than one of those at the very core of the ICANN ecology plainly  
acknowledge this reality.  The organization finds ways to change  
policy, toward final stages, in ways that favor the tiny handful of  
incumbents, generally from the West, who provide its funding.

This self-dealing is the very antithesis of 'public service' - this is  
self service, which only disadvantages the rest of the world.  To see  
the dynamic in some relief, we only have to look to recent uprisings  
in the Middle East.  ICANN is corrupt.

In the end, such an ICANN miserably fails any test for trust or even- 
handed public service.  Whatever ideals might be served, by multi- 
stakeholder visions for a future, they come crashing to the ground in  
this ugly reality.


As it happens, this topic brings up, from last year's end, what was  
supposed to complete, as a second installment, a report re the  
enhanced cooperation vector.  So hopefully, that may now find time for  
completion.


Again however - thanks for this contribution, this High Noon piece.   
It is a pleasure.  And as we see the piece offers, itself, to engender  
dialog.

David

On May 22, 2011, at 4:26 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> FYI
>
> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/05/18/high-noon-in-singapore
>
> wolfgang


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110525/4f886cd1/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  Wed May 25 12:08:51 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 18:08:51 +0200
Subject: [governance] Action on Freedom of Expression and the Internet
Message-ID: <4DDD2993.2070800@apc.org>

Dear IGC list

Just an update for you all on the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of
Opinion and Expression, which will be presented to the Human Rights
Council on Friday 3 June. The report is available at:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf

APC has issued a written statement is available at
http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/briefs/internet-rights-are-human-rights-claims-apc-human-
and is also attached. Below is an urgent action update which we are
circulating and encouraging action on.

APC is also hosting a side event on Friday 3 June in Geneva which the
Special Rapporteur will attend and we are extending an open invitation
to that event:
http://www.apc.org/en/news/un-human-rights-council-apc-co-organises-event-int


If you would like to sign on to the APC statement *please do so by
writing to analia at apc.org by Thursday 2
June 2011*.

Best

Anriette

APC URGENT ACTION UPDATE: INTERNET RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS

What’s New?

On Friday 3 June 2011, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of
Expression, Frank La Rue, will present his annual report to the Human
Rights Council. This year the report will focus on the internet.  The
report outlines the growing trend of restricting freedom of expression
and association online, and the importance of reaffirming these freedoms
in the online sphere.  Member States can participate in interactive
dialogue on the report and respond to issues.

What are the lobbying priorities of APC?

We want all States to commit to positive steps in response to the
report. APC has issued a written statement with 30 recommendations for
practical actions including repeal of laws restricting free speech,
ending practices of unlawful surveillance, establishment of clear and
transparent legal procedures for the blocking of illegal content and the
passing of laws that protect the security and privacy of citizens'
personal information. All State delegations will have a copy of this
statement which is available at:
http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/briefs/internet-rights-are-human-rights-claims-apc-human-


We emphasise that women’s human rights must be respected and protected
and their rights to freedom of expression and association must not be
restricted, directly or indirectly, in the name of ‘security’ or other
law enforcement measures except as determined in accordance with agreed
human rights standards.

We want the Human Rights Council to adopt a participatory approach in
developing responses to the issues raised by the Special Rapporteur
through open processes that ensure the engagement of all, particularly
vulnerable and marginalised groups, in accordance with the rights based
approach and principles of information sharing, participation and
transparency.

What can you do?

Send a message to your Foreign Ministry today! Contact details for each
Ministry can be found at: http://www.ediplomat.com/dc/foreign_ministries.htm

Copy your message to your country’s Ambassador in Geneva. Contact
details for the Geneva missions of each State can be found at:
http://tinyurl.com/t2cwt

Encourage them to attend the APC side event in Geneva on 3 June that
will highlight these issues
http://www.apc.org/en/news/un-human-rights-council-apc-co-organises-event-int

Point out that internet rights are human rights and that all people have
the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association. No one
should be subject to human rights violations such as:

a) criminalisation of online expression,
b) blocking, controlling and manipulating internet content,
c) interference with privacy and data protection,
d) unlawful surveillance, and restrictions and
e) limitations on internet access. Such actions are contrary to and a
violation of the right to freedom of expression affirmed in Article 19
of the ICCPR.

Ask for action on at least one of the recommendations in the APC statement.

Forward this alert to others. Encourage mainstream human rights
organisations, friends, national human rights institutions and other
allies to contact their governments and make their voices heard.

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To 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: HRC_APCStatement.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 76462 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110525/fda8b1b3/attachment.pdf>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed May 25 16:03:35 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 03:03:35 +0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [chineseinternetresearch] Civil society speaks
 out, condemns attempts to regulate Internet at the e-G8
Message-ID: <3D6BF566E03D46159F42C0A4E6C24601@userPC>



-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:15 PM
To: chineseinternetresearch at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [chineseinternetresearch] Civil society speaks out, condemns
attempts to regulate Internet at the e-G8

http://en.rsf.org/joint-appeal-to-e-g8-participants-25-05-2011,40347.html

Civil society speaks out, condemns attempts to regulate Internet

Civil society representatives gave an unofficial news conference this
morning in one of the conference rooms of the “e-G8” forum on Internet
issues in Paris, voicing their opposition to attempts to regulate the
Internet and criticizing the lack of representativeness of most of those who
were invited by the French government to take part in the forum.

Participants in the news conference – improvised at the last minute and not
part of the forum’s official programme – included Reporters Without Borders
secretary-general Jean-François Julliard, Jérémie Zimmerman of the French
NGO Quadrature du Net, former ICANN board member Susan Crawford, US
journalist Jeff Jarvis and Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig, a
specialist in copyright.

Jarvis said he was “scared by those who are scared of the Internet.”
Julliard said he was “extremely disappointed” by the course taken by
discussions during the e-G8 forum, including the lack of a strongly-worded
message to governments that target journalists, bloggers and
cyber-dissidents.

“The free Internet must be defended before thought is given to regulating
content,” Julliard said. “The priority for G8 governments should be
defending the Internet.”

Julliard made similar comments when he took part in a panel discussion today
on “Electronic Liberty: New Tools for Freedom,” an official part of the
forum’s programme. Other participants included Google representatives, Alec
Ross of the US State Department, and journalists and activists from the Arab
world.

“The G8 should say clearly that Internet access is a fundamental human
right, before discussing anything else, whether economic development or
copyright issues,” Julliard said.

He also accused certain democracies of saying one thing and doing another.
He cited the US administration’s actions as regards WikiLeaks but said other
democracies did not lag far behind. “It is easy to defend freedom of speech
in Syria, but we should defend it in Italy, Australia and France as well.”

Some press to date:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2011/05/25/97001-20110525FILWWW00443-decep
tions-a-l-e-g8.php

http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/05/25/protests-begin-at-e-g8/?mod=goog
le_news_blog

http://www.freenews.fr/spip.php?article10282

http://www.sudouest.fr/2011/05/25/jeff-jarvis-a-l-e-g8-effraye-par-les-gens-
qui-sont-effrayes-par-internet-408469-4725.php

http://www.numerama.com/magazine/18874-eg8-le-gros-coup-de-colere-de-la-soci
ete-civile.html

http://www.electronlibre.info/spip.php?show=7662

http://lexpansion.lexpress.fr/high-tech/eg8-les-representants-de-la-societe-
civile-s-estiment-ignores_256112.html




_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrights
andprinciples.org


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

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chineseinternetresearch/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chineseinternetresearch/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    chineseinternetresearch-digest at yahoogroups.com 
    chineseinternetresearch-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    chineseinternetresearch-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

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

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu May 26 00:14:44 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 07:14:44 +0300
Subject: [governance] Towards Singapore
In-Reply-To: <0E9B99D7-AB13-43D4-AC43-D605640BD0BD@post.harvard.edu>
References: <C9FE888B.21086%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <0E9B99D7-AB13-43D4-AC43-D605640BD0BD@post.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinnkeGVxHc=RXTC3gD26KUDxzhp4w@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:13 PM, David Allen
<David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Thanks to Wolfgang Kleinwächter for this delightful piece, more than that -
> artful, graceful, a key history for next thinking and a pleasure indeed!

Tis indeed.

<analysis snipped>

> 2a  This and other such descriptions, IMHO, lack actionable substance -
> there is no 'there' there.  While most admirable in aspiration, the
> pronouncements so far on multi-stakeholderism do not get beyond aspiration.

They are certainly descriptive (not just aspirational) of what I
experience in my little corner of IG.

It seems to be time for my semi annual RIR attendee number crunching.

See http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-14/index.php/register/participant-list
for raw data.
This time, due to the large number of university reps, I have broken
it down into 5 SH groups:

itc	30             14%
gov	24            12%
cs	25           12%
biz	60           29%
Acad	70  34%



<snip>

> What are the facts, as we consider if ICANN may be the paradigm for such
> Internet governance?

See above for facts about one aspect of ICANN processes that are truly
MS, despite a lack of "operable particulars".



> Despite all pretensions to the contrary, ICANN has served narrow interests,
> particularly the financial interests of that small handful who provide much
> of its funding.  The topic is usually taboo.  But more than one of those at
> the very core of the ICANN ecology plainly acknowledge this reality.  The
> organization finds ways to change policy, toward final stages, in ways that
> favor the tiny handful of incumbents, generally from the West, who provide
> its funding.
> This self-dealing is the very antithesis of 'public service' - this is self
> service, which only disadvantages the rest of the world.  To see the dynamic
> in some relief, we only have to look to recent uprisings in the Middle East.
>  ICANN is corrupt.
> In the end, such an ICANN miserably fails any test for trust or even-handed
> public service.

in its numbering bits, I think ICANN passes the test with flying
colors, naming bits, less so.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Thu May 26 00:26:19 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 00:26:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] Towards Singapore
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinnkeGVxHc=RXTC3gD26KUDxzhp4w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C9FE888B.21086%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <0E9B99D7-AB13-43D4-AC43-D605640BD0BD@post.harvard.edu> <BANLkTinnkeGVxHc=RXTC3gD26KUDxzhp4w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D98DC72E-7390-4D46-9011-7BD03F4D0580@ella.com>


On 26 May 2011, at 00:14, McTim wrote:

>> In the end, such an ICANN miserably fails any test for trust or even-handed
>> public service.
> 
> in its numbering bits, I think ICANN passes the test with flying
> colors, naming bits, less so.


you mean in terms of ipv4 and ipv6.
and proper shepherding of the remaining ipv4 resources.
and a reasonable plan for long term coexistence

i dispute that completely.  i think ITC behavior in the realm of 'numbering' has been anything but a pass with flying colors.  i am not even sure i think it passes.


a.

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

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

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


From avri at ella.com  Thu May 26 00:27:36 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 00:27:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] Towards Singapore
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinnkeGVxHc=RXTC3gD26KUDxzhp4w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C9FE888B.21086%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <0E9B99D7-AB13-43D4-AC43-D605640BD0BD@post.harvard.edu> <BANLkTinnkeGVxHc=RXTC3gD26KUDxzhp4w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2BDE2FBC-45CF-43C8-A217-0ECD5E4ADA2B@ella.com>


On 26 May 2011, at 00:14, McTim wrote:

>> In the end, such an ICANN miserably fails any test for trust or even-handed
>> public service.
> 
> in its numbering bits, I think ICANN passes the test with flying
> colors, naming bits, less so.


on one part i do agree.  
on naming bits, a political horror show.

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

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

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


From divina.meigs at orange.fr  Thu May 26 02:34:15 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 08:34:15 +0200
Subject: [governance] Some news
Message-ID: <CA03C10A.21312%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Hello,

Please find attached the declaration done by civil society yesterday, that
mentions our open letter to Sarkozy. Also some news from Le Monde where the
mail address of our caucus is also mentioned...
I would like to thank Marie George for following this and agitating from
home, as I was trying to remain in the room and make comments to show that
civil society had a different take. The final comments to take to Deauville
were made at 7pm and I had time to say that governance had to be
multistakeholder and that the lack of vision about human rights was to be
regretted. Some of the people who will go to Deauville publicly said they
would pick it up...
Best
Divina 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110526/530c6c19/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: d?claration de la soci?t? civ#0
Type: application/pdf
Size: 131575 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110526/530c6c19/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: E g8 forum presse divergences.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 102400 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110526/530c6c19/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 divina.meigs at orange.fr  Thu May 26 04:02:19 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 10:02:19 +0200
Subject: [governance] E-G8 second day reporting
Message-ID: <CA03D5AD.21330%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

e-G8 day two
Day two was more broken up than day one, so I¹ll go quickly through the
various sessions, to concentrate on the summary of recommendations that took
place in the end (You can follow the details on line).  Please note that the
whole thing was a relatively futile exercise, given the fact that most of
the G8 documents are readied months in advance. However, there will be a
delegation of 5 members from the e-G8 who are supposed to bring back the
results/recommendations to the heads of states in Deauville. The delegation
is composed of Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Eric Schmidt (Google), Maurice
Lévy (Publicis), Yuri Milner (Digital Sky Technologies), Stéphane Richard
(Orange) and Hiroshi Mikitani (Rakuten)‹a very representative selection of
powerful male billionaires.
 
 
1-conversation with Neelie Kroes (European Digital Agenda Commissioner)
some issues require rules, that can be applied by governments when the
private sector doesn¹t act. These rules should be global. The G8 should take
them seriously, make decisions and review them.  It is an urgent decision
 
2- plenary 5 : fostering innovation
Good presentation of the stakes by Lessig, but the rest of the discussion
less interesting and no solutions offered.  Lack of small companies made it
difficult to hear voice of incumbents
 
3- plenary 6 : digital transformation (of traditional business)
no doubt among the participants that welfare packages and worker protection
are gone and not worth defending. Public policy will have to adapt to such
³painful² social perspectives and move towards jobs for young people based
on mobility and no protection. Big companies are important because they
influence small businesses that are part of their supply chain (75% of
growth on internet is brought by old business). E-learning is a new mode for
self-training and self-organizing. Public service obligations are an
obsolete form of regulation and public service corporations should take the
³public service test² Š micro-segmentation is the way to go: ³serve the
segment to one²; ³businesses have to become democracies too²
 
4- workshop 1 (theme 3): electronic liberty (workshop in presence of Nadine
Wahab, Egyptian activist)
interesting comments on Google¹s role in Egypt (meant to keep internet open
for business, not to help the revolution). Importance of freedom of
expression announced as key for business. Social media as part of toolbox
for electoral campaigns. For Nadine Wahab, the organization of civil society
came first, the social networks came second in the Egyptian movement. People
will always choose pacific solutions and peace to terrorism. Transparency as
best tool for fighting censorship (Perry Barlow from the floor). Democratic
countries have to avoid double-standards. Role of companies (twitter) :
defend the user¹s rights to defend himself. G8 should make internet access a
human right 
 
5-wokshop 2 (theme 2): Disinter media (the press): only in the presence of
top newspapers with specialized content to sell. Rather happy about
themselves, though they made the initial mistake of offering their content
online for free. Backtracking on this by having single cost of content, with
multiple outlets. Repurposing of stories for a global audience.  ³content
defines us, not the means of distribuiton² Sulzberger NYT)
 
6-workshop 3 (theme 3): Data dilemma (privacy):
several definitions of privacy, but consensus on the users¹ right to control
information about themselves. Confrontation of EU and US models: the
European one not enough enforced and therefore not respected, the US one
enforced by FTC and respectedŠ
 
7-Closing conversation with Mark Zuckerberg: social design will be leading
aspect of internet future (example of gaming), being ³grounded on reality²;
doesn¹t believe in network effects; the Arab revolution is ³not a Facebook
thing, it is an internet thing² and what is necessary is organized people.
 
8-Closing plenary: there were several bullet points that recapped each
plenary and workshop (to be found online). Among the dominant ones:
            *private sector is faster than governments
            *job creation is done by small corporations
            *governments should provide access but not regulate content and
focus on job creation
 
**²governance needs to link business, civil society and government² WAS
SCRATCHED  AS NOBODY UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT MEANS !! AND I HAD TO INTERVENE
LATER TO ASK FOR IT TO BE MAINTAINED, IN A SPIRIT OF MULTISTAKEHOLDERISM
THAT CHARACTERIZES INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES IN ALL THE OTHER FORA OF THE
PLANETŠ
 
            *expression is not synonymous with property (might be scratched
in the end)
            *²governments must help manage social dislocations that will
make the workplace more flexible but also more precarious² (might be
scratched)
            *G8 should discuss harmonisation of rules between countries for
enterntainment (IP rights)
            *mobile smart phones are dominated by 2 or 3 gatekeepers and
this should require ³strong antitrust oversight²
            *publishing governement data on line is a great start but is
badly done. 
            *eliminate software patents (definitely on the way of being
scratched) ­came out of ³disrupters workshop²
            *privacy legislation may restrict free speech. It needs care
 
additional recommendations by  the panel:
            -big companies are good role models
            -rapid response in case of breakdowns
            -promote investment not regulation
            -rules of society should apply to internet
            -enable students with digital skills
            -more organized participation from NGOs
            
General feeling: some issues like security, IP rights are emerging but
nobody seems to have a solution; nothing about cloud computing; nothing
about risks in case of breakdown; nothing about public goods and open source
or open dataŠ general consensus for e-G8 to be made permanent (one voice
saying every over year)
 
                                    Divina Frau-Meigs, Paris   May 25th

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110526/88c264c7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Divina FRAU-MEIGS e-G8 day two.rtf
Type: application/msword
Size: 41582 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110526/88c264c7/attachment.dot>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From amalidesilva at yahoo.com  Thu May 26 04:06:33 2011
From: amalidesilva at yahoo.com (Amali De Silva)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 01:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Some news
In-Reply-To: <CA03C10A.21312%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <744104.54482.qm@web112313.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

As for UN- WSIS please make a distinction for Children's Rights ....thank you
 
Amali De Silva - Mitchell (personal comment ) 










Private & Confidential 
 
 

--- On Thu, 5/26/11, Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr> wrote:


From: Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr>
Subject: [governance] Some news
To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Received: Thursday, May 26, 2011, 1:34 AM


Hello,

Please find attached the declaration done by civil society yesterday, that mentions our open letter to Sarkozy. Also some news from Le Monde where the mail address of our caucus is also mentioned... 
I would like to thank Marie George for following this and agitating from home, as I was trying to remain in the room and make comments to show that civil society had a different take. The final comments to take to Deauville were made at 7pm and I had time to say that governance had to be multistakeholder and that the lack of vision about human rights was to be regretted. Some of the people who will go to Deauville publicly said they would pick it up...
Best
Divina 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To 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/20110526/e24e1c67/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 divina.meigs at orange.fr  Thu May 26 04:17:07 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 10:17:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] E-G8 second day reporting
In-Reply-To: <CA03D5AD.21330%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <CA03D923.2133B%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Dear all
I forgot to add that i was able to make a final intervention at 7pm,
emphasizing the fact that civil society deplored the absence of human rights
principles in the recommendations that they were ready to carry to Deauville
(besides enlightening them on the meaning of ³governance²)...
divina


Le 26/05/11 10:02, « divina meigs » <divina.meigs at orange.fr> a écrit :

> e-G8 day two
> Day two was more broken up than day one, so I¹ll go quickly through the
> various sessions, to concentrate on the summary of recommendations that took
> place in the end (You can follow the details on line).  Please note that the
> whole thing was a relatively futile exercise, given the fact that most of the
> G8 documents are readied months in advance. However, there will be a
> delegation of 5 members from the e-G8 who are supposed to bring back the
> results/recommendations to the heads of states in Deauville. The delegation is
> composed of Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Eric Schmidt (Google), Maurice Lévy
> (Publicis), Yuri Milner (Digital Sky Technologies), Stéphane Richard (Orange)
> and Hiroshi Mikitani (Rakuten)‹a very representative selection of powerful
> male billionaires.
>  
>  
> 1-conversation with Neelie Kroes (European Digital Agenda Commissioner)
> some issues require rules, that can be applied by governments when the private
> sector doesn¹t act. These rules should be global. The G8 should take them
> seriously, make decisions and review them.  It is an urgent decision
>  
> 2- plenary 5 : fostering innovation
> Good presentation of the stakes by Lessig, but the rest of the discussion less
> interesting and no solutions offered.  Lack of small companies made it
> difficult to hear voice of incumbents
>  
> 3- plenary 6 : digital transformation (of traditional business)
> no doubt among the participants that welfare packages and worker protection
> are gone and not worth defending. Public policy will have to adapt to such
> ³painful² social perspectives and move towards jobs for young people based on
> mobility and no protection. Big companies are important because they influence
> small businesses that are part of their supply chain (75% of growth on
> internet is brought by old business). E-learning is a new mode for
> self-training and self-organizing. Public service obligations are an obsolete
> form of regulation and public service corporations should take the ³public
> service test² Š micro-segmentation is the way to go: ³serve the segment to
> one²; ³businesses have to become democracies too²
>  
> 4- workshop 1 (theme 3): electronic liberty (workshop in presence of Nadine
> Wahab, Egyptian activist)
> interesting comments on Google¹s role in Egypt (meant to keep internet open
> for business, not to help the revolution). Importance of freedom of expression
> announced as key for business. Social media as part of toolbox for electoral
> campaigns. For Nadine Wahab, the organization of civil society came first, the
> social networks came second in the Egyptian movement. People will always
> choose pacific solutions and peace to terrorism. Transparency as best tool for
> fighting censorship (Perry Barlow from the floor). Democratic countries have
> to avoid double-standards. Role of companies (twitter) : defend the user¹s
> rights to defend himself. G8 should make internet access a human right
>  
> 5-wokshop 2 (theme 2): Disinter media (the press): only in the presence of top
> newspapers with specialized content to sell. Rather happy about themselves,
> though they made the initial mistake of offering their content online for
> free. Backtracking on this by having single cost of content, with multiple
> outlets. Repurposing of stories for a global audience.  ³content defines us,
> not the means of distribuiton² Sulzberger NYT)
>  
> 6-workshop 3 (theme 3): Data dilemma (privacy):
> several definitions of privacy, but consensus on the users¹ right to control
> information about themselves. Confrontation of EU and US models: the European
> one not enough enforced and therefore not respected, the US one enforced by
> FTC and respectedŠ
>  
> 7-Closing conversation with Mark Zuckerberg: social design will be leading
> aspect of internet future (example of gaming), being ³grounded on reality²;
> doesn¹t believe in network effects; the Arab revolution is ³not a Facebook
> thing, it is an internet thing² and what is necessary is organized people.
>  
> 8-Closing plenary: there were several bullet points that recapped each plenary
> and workshop (to be found online). Among the dominant ones:
>             *private sector is faster than governments
>             *job creation is done by small corporations
>             *governments should provide access but not regulate content and
> focus on job creation
>  
> **²governance needs to link business, civil society and government² WAS
> SCRATCHED  AS NOBODY UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT MEANS !! AND I HAD TO INTERVENE LATER
> TO ASK FOR IT TO BE MAINTAINED, IN A SPIRIT OF MULTISTAKEHOLDERISM THAT
> CHARACTERIZES INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES IN ALL THE OTHER FORA OF THE PLANETŠ
>  
>             *expression is not synonymous with property (might be scratched in
> the end)
>             *²governments must help manage social dislocations that will make
> the workplace more flexible but also more precarious² (might be scratched)
>             *G8 should discuss harmonisation of rules between countries for
> enterntainment (IP rights)
>             *mobile smart phones are dominated by 2 or 3 gatekeepers and this
> should require ³strong antitrust oversight²
>             *publishing governement data on line is a great start but is badly
> done. 
>             *eliminate software patents (definitely on the way of being
> scratched) ­came out of ³disrupters workshop²
>             *privacy legislation may restrict free speech. It needs care
>  
> additional recommendations by  the panel:
>             -big companies are good role models
>             -rapid response in case of breakdowns
>             -promote investment not regulation
>             -rules of society should apply to internet
>             -enable students with digital skills
>             -more organized participation from NGOs
>             
> General feeling: some issues like security, IP rights are emerging but nobody
> seems to have a solution; nothing about cloud computing; nothing about risks
> in case of breakdown; nothing about public goods and open source or open dataŠ
> general consensus for e-G8 to be made permanent (one voice saying every over
> year)
>  
>                                     Divina Frau-Meigs, Paris   May 25th
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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/20110526/aa944a17/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  Thu May 26 04:26:08 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 10:26:08 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] E-G8 second day reporting
References: <CA03D923.2133B%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C042@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Thanks again Divina for the detailed and very useful reporting. 
 
Just one point: If the eG8 will take place annually this will push the IGF in a competetive situation. Is there an option to combine them in the future? Interesting point. 
 
I remember that as a result of the G 7 meeting in Okinawa in 2000 the "G7 DotForce" was established as an outcome (and triggered the establishment of the UN ICT Task Force which was much broader then the G7 DotForce. A couple of years later DotForce became integrated inti the UNICTTF. :-))).
 
Wolfgang  

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Divina MEIGS
Gesendet: Do 26.05.2011 10:17
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] E-G8 second day reporting


Dear all
I forgot to add that i was able to make a final intervention at 7pm, emphasizing the fact that civil society deplored the absence of human rights principles in the recommendations that they were ready to carry to Deauville (besides enlightening them on the meaning of "governance")... 
divina


Le 26/05/11 10:02, « divina meigs » <divina.meigs at orange.fr> a écrit :



	e-G8 day two
	Day two was more broken up than day one, so I'll go quickly through the various sessions, to concentrate on the summary of recommendations that took place in the end (You can follow the details on line).  Please note that the whole thing was a relatively futile exercise, given the fact that most of the G8 documents are readied months in advance. However, there will be a delegation of 5 members from the e-G8 who are supposed to bring back the results/recommendations to the heads of states in Deauville. The delegation is composed of Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Eric Schmidt (Google), Maurice Lévy (Publicis), Yuri Milner (Digital Sky Technologies), Stéphane Richard (Orange) and Hiroshi Mikitani (Rakuten)-a very representative selection of powerful male billionaires.
	 
	 
	1-conversation with Neelie Kroes (European Digital Agenda Commissioner)
	some issues require rules, that can be applied by governments when the private sector doesn't act. These rules should be global. The G8 should take them seriously, make decisions and review them.  It is an urgent decision
	 
	2- plenary 5 : fostering innovation 
	Good presentation of the stakes by Lessig, but the rest of the discussion less interesting and no solutions offered.  Lack of small companies made it difficult to hear voice of incumbents
	 
	3- plenary 6 : digital transformation (of traditional business)
	no doubt among the participants that welfare packages and worker protection are gone and not worth defending. Public policy will have to adapt to such "painful" social perspectives and move towards jobs for young people based on mobility and no protection. Big companies are important because they influence small businesses that are part of their supply chain (75% of growth on internet is brought by old business). E-learning is a new mode for self-training and self-organizing. Public service obligations are an obsolete form of regulation and public service corporations should take the "public service test" ... micro-segmentation is the way to go: "serve the segment to one"; "businesses have to become democracies too"
	 
	4- workshop 1 (theme 3): electronic liberty (workshop in presence of Nadine Wahab, Egyptian activist)
	interesting comments on Google's role in Egypt (meant to keep internet open for business, not to help the revolution). Importance of freedom of expression announced as key for business. Social media as part of toolbox for electoral campaigns. For Nadine Wahab, the organization of civil society came first, the social networks came second in the Egyptian movement. People will always choose pacific solutions and peace to terrorism. Transparency as best tool for fighting censorship (Perry Barlow from the floor). Democratic countries have to avoid double-standards. Role of companies (twitter) : defend the user's rights to defend himself. G8 should make internet access a human right 
	 
	5-wokshop 2 (theme 2): Disinter media (the press): only in the presence of top newspapers with specialized content to sell. Rather happy about themselves, though they made the initial mistake of offering their content online for free. Backtracking on this by having single cost of content, with multiple outlets. Repurposing of stories for a global audience.  "content defines us, not the means of distribuiton" Sulzberger NYT)
	 
	6-workshop 3 (theme 3): Data dilemma (privacy): 
	several definitions of privacy, but consensus on the users' right to control information about themselves. Confrontation of EU and US models: the European one not enough enforced and therefore not respected, the US one enforced by FTC and respected...
	 
	7-Closing conversation with Mark Zuckerberg: social design will be leading aspect of internet future (example of gaming), being "grounded on reality"; doesn't believe in network effects; the Arab revolution is "not a Facebook thing, it is an internet thing" and what is necessary is organized people.
	 
	8-Closing plenary: there were several bullet points that recapped each plenary and workshop (to be found online). Among the dominant ones: 
	            *private sector is faster than governments
	            *job creation is done by small corporations
	            *governments should provide access but not regulate content and focus on job creation
	 
	**"governance needs to link business, civil society and government" WAS SCRATCHED  AS NOBODY UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT MEANS !! AND I HAD TO INTERVENE LATER TO ASK FOR IT TO BE MAINTAINED, IN A SPIRIT OF MULTISTAKEHOLDERISM THAT CHARACTERIZES INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES IN ALL THE OTHER FORA OF THE PLANET...
	 
	            *expression is not synonymous with property (might be scratched in the end)
	            *"governments must help manage social dislocations that will make the workplace more flexible but also more precarious" (might be scratched)
	            *G8 should discuss harmonisation of rules between countries for enterntainment (IP rights)
	            *mobile smart phones are dominated by 2 or 3 gatekeepers and this should require "strong antitrust oversight" 
	            *publishing governement data on line is a great start but is badly done. 
	            *eliminate software patents (definitely on the way of being scratched) -came out of "disrupters workshop"
	            *privacy legislation may restrict free speech. It needs care
	 
	additional recommendations by  the panel: 
	            -big companies are good role models
	            -rapid response in case of breakdowns
	            -promote investment not regulation 
	            -rules of society should apply to internet  
	            -enable students with digital skills
	            -more organized participation from NGOs
	            
	General feeling: some issues like security, IP rights are emerging but nobody seems to have a solution; nothing about cloud computing; nothing about risks in case of breakdown; nothing about public goods and open source or open data... general consensus for e-G8 to be made permanent (one voice saying every over year)
	 
	                                    Divina Frau-Meigs, Paris   May 25th
	
	
________________________________

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

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Thu May 26 05:50:57 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 11:50:57 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] E-G8 second day reporting
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C042@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CA03EF21.2134A%divina.meigs@orange.fr>


Dear Wolfgang

The IGF was not mentioned even once during the e-G8... So combining them in
the future might be something to bring up for preparations of next e-G8, if
any

It could be an interesting outcome to have a major endorsement by the G8
states of a concerted strategy around the critical ressources of the
internet, especially if expanded at the G20 level, which is unlikely. But it
would have to be truly multistakeholder or it would totally unacceptable ...

My two cents
divina

Le 26/05/11 10:26, « Kleinwächter, Wolfgang »
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> a écrit :

> Thanks again Divina for the detailed and very useful reporting.
>  
> Just one point: If the eG8 will take place annually this will push the IGF in
> a competetive situation. Is there an option to combine them in the future?
> Interesting point.
>  
> I remember that as a result of the G 7 meeting in Okinawa in 2000 the "G7
> DotForce" was established as an outcome (and triggered the establishment of
> the UN ICT Task Force which was much broader then the G7 DotForce. A couple of
> years later DotForce became integrated inti the UNICTTF. :-))).
>  
> Wolfgang  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Divina MEIGS
> Gesendet: Do 26.05.2011 10:17
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: Re: [governance] E-G8 second day reporting
> 
> 
> Dear all
> I forgot to add that i was able to make a final intervention at 7pm,
> emphasizing the fact that civil society deplored the absence of human rights
> principles in the recommendations that they were ready to carry to Deauville
> (besides enlightening them on the meaning of "governance")...
> divina
> 
> 
> Le 26/05/11 10:02, « divina meigs » <divina.meigs at orange.fr> a écrit :
> 
> 
> 
> e-G8 day two
> Day two was more broken up than day one, so I'll go quickly through the
> various sessions, to concentrate on the summary of recommendations that took
> place in the end (You can follow the details on line).  Please note that the
> whole thing was a relatively futile exercise, given the fact that most of the
> G8 documents are readied months in advance. However, there will be a
> delegation of 5 members from the e-G8 who are supposed to bring back the
> results/recommendations to the heads of states in Deauville. The delegation is
> composed of Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Eric Schmidt (Google), Maurice Lévy
> (Publicis), Yuri Milner (Digital Sky Technologies), Stéphane Richard (Orange)
> and Hiroshi Mikitani (Rakuten)-a very representative selection of powerful
> male billionaires.
> 
> 
> 1-conversation with Neelie Kroes (European Digital Agenda Commissioner)
> some issues require rules, that can be applied by governments when the private
> sector doesn't act. These rules should be global. The G8 should take them
> seriously, make decisions and review them.  It is an urgent decision
> 
> 2- plenary 5 : fostering innovation
> Good presentation of the stakes by Lessig, but the rest of the discussion less
> interesting and no solutions offered.  Lack of small companies made it
> difficult to hear voice of incumbents
> 
> 3- plenary 6 : digital transformation (of traditional business)
> no doubt among the participants that welfare packages and worker protection
> are gone and not worth defending. Public policy will have to adapt to such
> "painful" social perspectives and move towards jobs for young people based on
> mobility and no protection. Big companies are important because they influence
> small businesses that are part of their supply chain (75% of growth on
> internet is brought by old business). E-learning is a new mode for
> self-training and self-organizing. Public service obligations are an obsolete
> form of regulation and public service corporations should take the "public
> service test" ... micro-segmentation is the way to go: "serve the segment to
> one"; "businesses have to become democracies too"
> 
> 4- workshop 1 (theme 3): electronic liberty (workshop in presence of Nadine
> Wahab, Egyptian activist)
> interesting comments on Google's role in Egypt (meant to keep internet open
> for business, not to help the revolution). Importance of freedom of expression
> announced as key for business. Social media as part of toolbox for electoral
> campaigns. For Nadine Wahab, the organization of civil society came first, the
> social networks came second in the Egyptian movement. People will always
> choose pacific solutions and peace to terrorism. Transparency as best tool for
> fighting censorship (Perry Barlow from the floor). Democratic countries have
> to avoid double-standards. Role of companies (twitter) : defend the user's
> rights to defend himself. G8 should make internet access a human right
> 
> 5-wokshop 2 (theme 2): Disinter media (the press): only in the presence of top
> newspapers with specialized content to sell. Rather happy about themselves,
> though they made the initial mistake of offering their content online for
> free. Backtracking on this by having single cost of content, with multiple
> outlets. Repurposing of stories for a global audience.  "content defines us,
> not the means of distribuiton" Sulzberger NYT)
> 
> 6-workshop 3 (theme 3): Data dilemma (privacy):
> several definitions of privacy, but consensus on the users' right to control
> information about themselves. Confrontation of EU and US models: the European
> one not enough enforced and therefore not respected, the US one enforced by
> FTC and respected...
> 
> 7-Closing conversation with Mark Zuckerberg: social design will be leading
> aspect of internet future (example of gaming), being "grounded on reality";
> doesn't believe in network effects; the Arab revolution is "not a Facebook
> thing, it is an internet thing" and what is necessary is organized people.
> 
> 8-Closing plenary: there were several bullet points that recapped each plenary
> and workshop (to be found online). Among the dominant ones:
>            *private sector is faster than governments
>            *job creation is done by small corporations
>            *governments should provide access but not regulate content and
> focus on job creation
> 
> **"governance needs to link business, civil society and government" WAS
> SCRATCHED  AS NOBODY UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT MEANS !! AND I HAD TO INTERVENE LATER
> TO ASK FOR IT TO BE MAINTAINED, IN A SPIRIT OF MULTISTAKEHOLDERISM THAT
> CHARACTERIZES INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES IN ALL THE OTHER FORA OF THE
> PLANET...
> 
>            *expression is not synonymous with property (might be scratched in
> the end)
>            *"governments must help manage social dislocations that will make
> the workplace more flexible but also more precarious" (might be scratched)
>            *G8 should discuss harmonisation of rules between countries for
> enterntainment (IP rights)
>            *mobile smart phones are dominated by 2 or 3 gatekeepers and this
> should require "strong antitrust oversight"
>            *publishing governement data on line is a great start but is badly
> done. 
>            *eliminate software patents (definitely on the way of being
> scratched) -came out of "disrupters workshop"
>            *privacy legislation may restrict free speech. It needs care
> 
> additional recommendations by  the panel:
>            -big companies are good role models
>            -rapid response in case of breakdowns
>            -promote investment not regulation
>            -rules of society should apply to internet
>            -enable students with digital skills
>            -more organized participation from NGOs
>            
> General feeling: some issues like security, IP rights are emerging but nobody
> seems to have a solution; nothing about cloud computing; nothing about risks
> in case of breakdown; nothing about public goods and open source or open
> data... general consensus for e-G8 to be made permanent (one voice saying
> every over year)
> 
>                                    Divina Frau-Meigs, Paris   May 25th
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 26 07:47:41 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 12:47:41 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] E-G8 second day reporting
In-Reply-To: <CA03EF21.2134A%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C042@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CA03EF21.2134A%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <m7LA8$Gd3j3NFAR4@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <CA03EF21.2134A%divina.meigs at orange.fr>, at 11:50:57 on Thu, 
26 May 2011, Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr> writes
>It could be an interesting outcome to have a major endorsement by the G8
>states of a concerted strategy around the critical ressources of the
>internet

The post-Okinawa G8 Dotforce meeting I went to (in UK) was all about 
Development Issues (access, primarily).

 >it would have to be truly multistakeholder or it would totally 
 >unacceptable ...

What G8 has is "convening power", they can easily get a whole bunch of 
multinational CEOs to the table. The same is true of the World Economic 
Forum.

For whatever reason, the IGF is still has some way to go in this regard 
- although it got off to a reasonable start in Athens, the last couple 
of years I've seen a trend for the main sessions to rely on speakers who 
were "there anyway" (for workshops perhaps), rather than because they 
wanted to make a special trip to appear.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Thu May 26 08:38:05 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 14:38:05 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] E-G8 second day reporting
In-Reply-To: <m7LA8$Gd3j3NFAR4@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <CA04164D.2137F%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

That's what I mean indeed. It seems we never had a "convening power" with
business, and I don't think the  international chamber of commerce is enough
representation for that community, in spite of its loyal presence to IGF...

We have to think of other ways of engaging with big business, and it might
be via small businesses (arguably part of civil society in UN listings). We
should identify their representatives in WIPO and other arenas and make an
effort to drag them out, person per person...

We do have to ask ourselves what we want to do as CS caucus. I was hard put
the last two days claiming any legitimacy for our constituency, which is
normal but debilitating. Maybe we should turn ourselves into an association
or ngo of some kind to be able to attend such fora and to make declarations
on the same standing as isoc or quadrature du net... We have to be more
incisive and more aggressive even inside the CSTD and ECOSOC world because
of course we shouldn't allow just the G8 dictate the agenda, even if comes
from countries that purport to be democratic ...

Maybe we should declare ourselves as a federation of associations and groups
welcoming all sorts of members, so that we send the message across that
there is a critical mass of people seriously thinking about these issues,
with a certain memory of past events and advances (so as not to start from
scratch like yesterday where i had the feeling i had to explain "governance"
and "multistakeholderism" to these top CEOs). Critical mass is what gets
attention of governements and businesses alike, because it is attached to
amount of votes and of sales... We have to start appearing as the global
public opinion on these issues, even if we know we are still rather
sphericules of opinion, but one has to start. Our colleagues in the Arab
spring countries could teach us quite a few lessons, in that way.

Best
Divina
ps: don't get me wrong: i don't think we did badly this time around in
Paris, and the media coverage is rather favorable to us, but it clearly was
too much improvised ...


Le 26/05/11 13:47, « Roland Perry » <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> a
écrit :

> In message <CA03EF21.2134A%divina.meigs at orange.fr>, at 11:50:57 on Thu,
> 26 May 2011, Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr> writes
>> It could be an interesting outcome to have a major endorsement by the G8
>> states of a concerted strategy around the critical ressources of the
>> internet
> 
> The post-Okinawa G8 Dotforce meeting I went to (in UK) was all about
> Development Issues (access, primarily).
> 
>> it would have to be truly multistakeholder or it would totally
>> unacceptable ...
> 
> What G8 has is "convening power", they can easily get a whole bunch of
> multinational CEOs to the table. The same is true of the World Economic
> Forum.
> 
> For whatever reason, the IGF is still has some way to go in this regard
> - although it got off to a reasonable start in Athens, the last couple
> of years I've seen a trend for the main sessions to rely on speakers who
> were "there anyway" (for workshops perhaps), rather than because they
> wanted to make a special trip to appear.


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Thu May 26 10:41:20 2011
From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 21:41:20 +0700
Subject: AW: [governance] E-G8 second day reporting
In-Reply-To: <CA04164D.2137F%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <CA04164D.2137F%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <4DDE6690.2000702@gmx.net>

>  "Maybe we should turn ourselves into an association
>  or ngo of some kind to be able to attend such fora
>  and to make declarations on the same standing as
>  isoc or quadrature du net...

>  "Critical mass is what gets attention of governments
>  and businesses alike,..."

Exactly.

Thanks, Divina.


Norbert


=

On 5/26/2011 7:38 PM, Divina MEIGS wrote:
> That's what I mean indeed. It seems we never had a "convening power" with
> business, and I don't think the  international chamber of commerce is enough
> representation for that community, in spite of its loyal presence to IGF...
>
> We have to think of other ways of engaging with big business, and it might
> be via small businesses (arguably part of civil society in UN listings). We
> should identify their representatives in WIPO and other arenas and make an
> effort to drag them out, person per person...
>
> We do have to ask ourselves what we want to do as CS caucus. I was hard put
> the last two days claiming any legitimacy for our constituency, which is
> normal but debilitating. Maybe we should turn ourselves into an association
> or ngo of some kind to be able to attend such fora and to make declarations
> on the same standing as isoc or quadrature du net... We have to be more
> incisive and more aggressive even inside the CSTD and ECOSOC world because
> of course we shouldn't allow just the G8 dictate the agenda, even if comes
> from countries that purport to be democratic ...
>
> Maybe we should declare ourselves as a federation of associations and groups
> welcoming all sorts of members, so that we send the message across that
> there is a critical mass of people seriously thinking about these issues,
> with a certain memory of past events and advances (so as not to start from
> scratch like yesterday where i had the feeling i had to explain "governance"
> and "multistakeholderism" to these top CEOs). Critical mass is what gets
> attention of governements and businesses alike, because it is attached to
> amount of votes and of sales... We have to start appearing as the global
> public opinion on these issues, even if we know we are still rather
> sphericules of opinion, but one has to start. Our colleagues in the Arab
> spring countries could teach us quite a few lessons, in that way.
>
> Best
> Divina
> ps: don't get me wrong: i don't think we did badly this time around in
> Paris, and the media coverage is rather favorable to us, but it clearly was
> too much improvised ...
>

-- 
Since 3 April 2011, The Mirror with reports and comments from Cambodia - originally since 1997 based on daily translations from the Khmer language press, is now only an archive of the past: http://www.cambodiamirror.org

But I started a new personal blog:

...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia
http://www.thinking21.org/

continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia.

Norbert Klein
nhklein at gmx.net
Phnom Penh / Cambodia


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

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

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


From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Thu May 26 12:22:25 2011
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 10:22:25 -0600
Subject: AW: [governance] E-G8 second day reporting
In-Reply-To: <CA04164D.2137F%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <m7LA8$Gd3j3NFAR4@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<CA04164D.2137F%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimeWz-8uakrH4CFn3T9EP0AUe=hBQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Divina,

I fully support exploring your idea:

*"...Maybe we should declare ourselves as a federation of associations and
groups
welcoming all sorts of members, so that we send the message across that
there is a critical mass of people seriously thinking about these issues,
with a certain memory of past events and advances..."*

It is important to convey the message about the messenger of this diverse
group conformed by people and organizations genuinely interested in,
thinking on and working on IG issues.

Best,

Miguel

Disclaimer
My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my
employer or any other institution

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr>wrote:

> That's what I mean indeed. It seems we never had a "convening power" with
> business, and I don't think the  international chamber of commerce is
> enough
> representation for that community, in spite of its loyal presence to IGF...
>
> We have to think of other ways of engaging with big business, and it might
> be via small businesses (arguably part of civil society in UN listings). We
> should identify their representatives in WIPO and other arenas and make an
> effort to drag them out, person per person...
>
> We do have to ask ourselves what we want to do as CS caucus. I was hard put
> the last two days claiming any legitimacy for our constituency, which is
> normal but debilitating. Maybe we should turn ourselves into an association
> or ngo of some kind to be able to attend such fora and to make declarations
> on the same standing as isoc or quadrature du net... We have to be more
> incisive and more aggressive even inside the CSTD and ECOSOC world because
> of course we shouldn't allow just the G8 dictate the agenda, even if comes
> from countries that purport to be democratic ...
>
> Maybe we should declare ourselves as a federation of associations and
> groups
> welcoming all sorts of members, so that we send the message across that
> there is a critical mass of people seriously thinking about these issues,
> with a certain memory of past events and advances (so as not to start from
> scratch like yesterday where i had the feeling i had to explain
> "governance"
> and "multistakeholderism" to these top CEOs). Critical mass is what gets
> attention of governements and businesses alike, because it is attached to
> amount of votes and of sales... We have to start appearing as the global
> public opinion on these issues, even if we know we are still rather
> sphericules of opinion, but one has to start. Our colleagues in the Arab
> spring countries could teach us quite a few lessons, in that way.
>
> Best
> Divina
> ps: don't get me wrong: i don't think we did badly this time around in
> Paris, and the media coverage is rather favorable to us, but it clearly was
> too much improvised ...
>
>
> Le 26/05/11 13:47, « Roland Perry » <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> a
> écrit :
>
> > In message <CA03EF21.2134A%divina.meigs at orange.fr>, at 11:50:57 on Thu,
> > 26 May 2011, Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr> writes
> >> It could be an interesting outcome to have a major endorsement by the G8
> >> states of a concerted strategy around the critical ressources of the
> >> internet
> >
> > The post-Okinawa G8 Dotforce meeting I went to (in UK) was all about
> > Development Issues (access, primarily).
> >
> >> it would have to be truly multistakeholder or it would totally
> >> unacceptable ...
> >
> > What G8 has is "convening power", they can easily get a whole bunch of
> > multinational CEOs to the table. The same is true of the World Economic
> > Forum.
> >
> > For whatever reason, the IGF is still has some way to go in this regard
> > - although it got off to a reasonable start in Athens, the last couple
> > of years I've seen a trend for the main sessions to rely on speakers who
> > were "there anyway" (for workshops perhaps), rather than because they
> > wanted to make a special trip to appear.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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/20110526/48663930/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  Thu May 26 15:38:20 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 22:38:20 +0300
Subject: [governance] Towards Singapore
In-Reply-To: <D98DC72E-7390-4D46-9011-7BD03F4D0580@ella.com>
References: <C9FE888B.21086%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <0E9B99D7-AB13-43D4-AC43-D605640BD0BD@post.harvard.edu> <BANLkTinnkeGVxHc=RXTC3gD26KUDxzhp4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <D98DC72E-7390-4D46-9011-7BD03F4D0580@ella.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimVH22QhWtLGRQE-u7nshiyjYXSWA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>
> On 26 May 2011, at 00:14, McTim wrote:
>
>>> In the end, such an ICANN miserably fails any test for trust or even-handed
>>> public service.
>>
>> in its numbering bits, I think ICANN passes the test with flying
>> colors, naming bits, less so.
>
>
> you mean in terms of ipv4 and ipv6.
> and proper shepherding of the remaining ipv4 resources.
> and a reasonable plan for long term coexistence

no, I was referring to David's comments about trust/even-handed public service.


>
> i dispute that completely.  i think ITC behavior in the realm of 'numbering' has been anything but a pass with flying colors.  i am not even sure i think it passes.

What would you have had the RIR communities who make policy do any
differently?

Certainly the IETF could have made the v6 compatible with v4, but they
didn't.  You can't blame the numbering policy community for that.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 26 17:33:27 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 23:33:27 +0200
Subject: [governance] Help EFF's newest campaign
Message-ID: <4DDEC727.3090609@eff.org>

Hi friends,

EFF is about to roll out a campaign to encourage organizations and 
individuals to run Tor relays.  For those of you that don't know, Tor is 
software and a network of volunteers worldwide that help people be 
anonymous online by masking IP addresses.  Individuals (like many 
bloggers in authoritarian regimes) need the Tor network to communicate 
safely. Unfortunately, the people who need Tor the most are often not in 
a position to run Tor relays and contribute to the Tor network. Those of 
us who care deeply about online privacy can make a tangible impact by 
participating in the Tor network.

EFF is reaching out to privacy and free speech organizations and asking 
them to join us in helping to grow the Tor network.  We're hoping that 
by working together as a movement, we can make a significant impact in 
the size of the Tor network - and help people worldwide safeguard their 
online privacy.

To participate, organizations need to set up a Tor relay. All relays 
count, including exit nodes, bridges and middle nodes.  EFF has created 
an instructional video on setting up a Tor relay and we're updating our 
legal FAQ to provide a more detailed analysis about how U.S. law applies 
to Tor. Check out the video here: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jmj4bILqiY

Organizations that participate in our challenge will be thanked on our 
social media accounts and promoted on our website.  We are emailing you 
now because we'd like to give the human rights community a head-start. 
  It's our hope that when we roll out this campaign next week, the 
initial participants will be the many organizations in the human rights 
community who are working hard to defend human rights on the Internet.

Please  contact Rainey Reitman, EFF Activism Director about this 
campaign and please do not hesitate to ask her any questions about the 
campaign. And, please do not promote this campaign out of this list 
until we launch next week. Thanks!

Rainey's contact detail:

Rainey Reitman
Activism Director
415.436.9333 ext 140
Electronic Frontier Foundation
www.eff.org <http://www.eff.org>
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110

-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110526/d15e6aeb/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 May 26 14:17:46 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 23:47:46 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] E-G8 second day reporting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimeWz-8uakrH4CFn3T9EP0AUe=hBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <m7LA8$Gd3j3NFAR4@internetpolicyagency.com>	<CA04164D.2137F%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <BANLkTimeWz-8uakrH4CFn3T9EP0AUe=hBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DDE994A.3030503@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 26 May 2011 09:52 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
> Dear Divina,
>
> I fully support exploring your idea:
>
> /"...Maybe we should declare ourselves as a federation of associations 
> and groups
> welcoming all sorts of members, so that we send the message across that
> there is a critical mass of people seriously thinking about these issues,
> with a certain memory of past events and advances..."/

That was what the IGC was born as, and was always supposed to be. 
However, instead of growing into this role, it may have steadily slid 
away from this central identity and role. .. The gap that this has left 
is very significant and important to fill. There is an urgent need for 
more purposive civil society action in the IG arena than what we are 
able to do.

It is one special feature of the IGC that it supports an open public 
list for IG discussions and that it conducts most of its work in this 
public space as well. And this feature is very very important, and cant 
and shouldnt ever go away. But this feature does not exhaust the role of 
the caucus. In fact, the proposition being forwarded here is that, 
however important, this is not 'the' primary and defining aspect of IGC. 
It was never meant to be that way. The primary and defining core of the 
IGC is to be a global civil society advocacy group  - as Divina puts it, 
as a federation of groups and association and other members. We should 
explore how we can grow towards and in such a role.


Parminder

>
> It is important to convey the message about the messenger of this 
> diverse group conformed by people and organizations genuinely 
> interested in, thinking on and working on IG issues.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> Disclaimer
> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my 
> employer or any other institution
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr 
> <mailto:divina.meigs at orange.fr>> wrote:
>
>     That's what I mean indeed. It seems we never had a "convening
>     power" with
>     business, and I don't think the  international chamber of commerce
>     is enough
>     representation for that community, in spite of its loyal presence
>     to IGF...
>
>     We have to think of other ways of engaging with big business, and
>     it might
>     be via small businesses (arguably part of civil society in UN
>     listings). We
>     should identify their representatives in WIPO and other arenas and
>     make an
>     effort to drag them out, person per person...
>
>     We do have to ask ourselves what we want to do as CS caucus. I was
>     hard put
>     the last two days claiming any legitimacy for our constituency,
>     which is
>     normal but debilitating. Maybe we should turn ourselves into an
>     association
>     or ngo of some kind to be able to attend such fora and to make
>     declarations
>     on the same standing as isoc or quadrature du net... We have to be
>     more
>     incisive and more aggressive even inside the CSTD and ECOSOC world
>     because
>     of course we shouldn't allow just the G8 dictate the agenda, even
>     if comes
>     from countries that purport to be democratic ...
>
>     Maybe we should declare ourselves as a federation of associations
>     and groups
>     welcoming all sorts of members, so that we send the message across
>     that
>     there is a critical mass of people seriously thinking about these
>     issues,
>     with a certain memory of past events and advances (so as not to
>     start from
>     scratch like yesterday where i had the feeling i had to explain
>     "governance"
>     and "multistakeholderism" to these top CEOs). Critical mass is
>     what gets
>     attention of governements and businesses alike, because it is
>     attached to
>     amount of votes and of sales... We have to start appearing as the
>     global
>     public opinion on these issues, even if we know we are still rather
>     sphericules of opinion, but one has to start. Our colleagues in
>     the Arab
>     spring countries could teach us quite a few lessons, in that way.
>
>     Best
>     Divina
>     ps: don't get me wrong: i don't think we did badly this time around in
>     Paris, and the media coverage is rather favorable to us, but it
>     clearly was
>     too much improvised ...
>
>
>     Le 26/05/11 13:47, « Roland Perry »
>     <roland at internetpolicyagency.com
>     <mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com>> a
>     écrit :
>
>     > In message <CA03EF21.2134A%divina.meigs at orange.fr
>     <mailto:CA03EF21.2134A%25divina.meigs at orange.fr>>, at 11:50:57 on Thu,
>     > 26 May 2011, Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr
>     <mailto:divina.meigs at orange.fr>> writes
>     >> It could be an interesting outcome to have a major endorsement
>     by the G8
>     >> states of a concerted strategy around the critical ressources
>     of the
>     >> internet
>     >
>     > The post-Okinawa G8 Dotforce meeting I went to (in UK) was all about
>     > Development Issues (access, primarily).
>     >
>     >> it would have to be truly multistakeholder or it would totally
>     >> unacceptable ...
>     >
>     > What G8 has is "convening power", they can easily get a whole
>     bunch of
>     > multinational CEOs to the table. The same is true of the World
>     Economic
>     > Forum.
>     >
>     > For whatever reason, the IGF is still has some way to go in this
>     regard
>     > - although it got off to a reasonable start in Athens, the last
>     couple
>     > of years I've seen a trend for the main sessions to rely on
>     speakers who
>     > were "there anyway" (for workshops perhaps), rather than because
>     they
>     > wanted to make a special trip to appear.
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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/20110526/890736b1/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 devonrb at gmail.com  Fri May 27 01:35:50 2011
From: devonrb at gmail.com (devonrb at gmail.com)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 05:35:50 +0000
Subject: AW: [governance] E-G8 second day reporting
In-Reply-To: <4DDE994A.3030503@itforchange.net>
References: <m7LA8$Gd3j3NFAR4@internetpolicyagency.com>	<CA04164D.2137F%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <BANLkTimeWz-8uakrH4CFn3T9EP0AUe=hBQ@mail.gmail.com><4DDE994A.3030503@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1091496300-1306474551-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2016685648-@b5.c7.bise6.blackberry>

A representative status has its place, a legal representative status with a defined role and an administrative structure would increase the efficiency and provide the base for official recognition of IGF as seems to be the need.
Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel

-----Original Message-----
From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 23:47:46 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] E-G8 second day reporting



On Thursday 26 May 2011 09:52 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
> Dear Divina,
>
> I fully support exploring your idea:
>
> /"...Maybe we should declare ourselves as a federation of associations 
> and groups
> welcoming all sorts of members, so that we send the message across that
> there is a critical mass of people seriously thinking about these issues,
> with a certain memory of past events and advances..."/

That was what the IGC was born as, and was always supposed to be. 
However, instead of growing into this role, it may have steadily slid 
away from this central identity and role. .. The gap that this has left 
is very significant and important to fill. There is an urgent need for 
more purposive civil society action in the IG arena than what we are 
able to do.

It is one special feature of the IGC that it supports an open public 
list for IG discussions and that it conducts most of its work in this 
public space as well. And this feature is very very important, and cant 
and shouldnt ever go away. But this feature does not exhaust the role of 
the caucus. In fact, the proposition being forwarded here is that, 
however important, this is not 'the' primary and defining aspect of IGC. 
It was never meant to be that way. The primary and defining core of the 
IGC is to be a global civil society advocacy group  - as Divina puts it, 
as a federation of groups and association and other members. We should 
explore how we can grow towards and in such a role.


Parminder

>
> It is important to convey the message about the messenger of this 
> diverse group conformed by people and organizations genuinely 
> interested in, thinking on and working on IG issues.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> Disclaimer
> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my 
> employer or any other institution
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr 
> <mailto:divina.meigs at orange.fr>> wrote:
>
>     That's what I mean indeed. It seems we never had a "convening
>     power" with
>     business, and I don't think the  international chamber of commerce
>     is enough
>     representation for that community, in spite of its loyal presence
>     to IGF...
>
>     We have to think of other ways of engaging with big business, and
>     it might
>     be via small businesses (arguably part of civil society in UN
>     listings). We
>     should identify their representatives in WIPO and other arenas and
>     make an
>     effort to drag them out, person per person...
>
>     We do have to ask ourselves what we want to do as CS caucus. I was
>     hard put
>     the last two days claiming any legitimacy for our constituency,
>     which is
>     normal but debilitating. Maybe we should turn ourselves into an
>     association
>     or ngo of some kind to be able to attend such fora and to make
>     declarations
>     on the same standing as isoc or quadrature du net... We have to be
>     more
>     incisive and more aggressive even inside the CSTD and ECOSOC world
>     because
>     of course we shouldn't allow just the G8 dictate the agenda, even
>     if comes
>     from countries that purport to be democratic ...
>
>     Maybe we should declare ourselves as a federation of associations
>     and groups
>     welcoming all sorts of members, so that we send the message across
>     that
>     there is a critical mass of people seriously thinking about these
>     issues,
>     with a certain memory of past events and advances (so as not to
>     start from
>     scratch like yesterday where i had the feeling i had to explain
>     "governance"
>     and "multistakeholderism" to these top CEOs). Critical mass is
>     what gets
>     attention of governements and businesses alike, because it is
>     attached to
>     amount of votes and of sales... We have to start appearing as the
>     global
>     public opinion on these issues, even if we know we are still rather
>     sphericules of opinion, but one has to start. Our colleagues in
>     the Arab
>     spring countries could teach us quite a few lessons, in that way.
>
>     Best
>     Divina
>     ps: don't get me wrong: i don't think we did badly this time around in
>     Paris, and the media coverage is rather favorable to us, but it
>     clearly was
>     too much improvised ...
>
>
>     Le 26/05/11 13:47, « Roland Perry »
>     <roland at internetpolicyagency.com
>     <mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com>> a
>     écrit :
>
>     > In message <CA03EF21.2134A%divina.meigs at orange.fr
>     <mailto:CA03EF21.2134A%25divina.meigs at orange.fr>>, at 11:50:57 on Thu,
>     > 26 May 2011, Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr
>     <mailto:divina.meigs at orange.fr>> writes
>     >> It could be an interesting outcome to have a major endorsement
>     by the G8
>     >> states of a concerted strategy around the critical ressources
>     of the
>     >> internet
>     >
>     > The post-Okinawa G8 Dotforce meeting I went to (in UK) was all about
>     > Development Issues (access, primarily).
>     >
>     >> it would have to be truly multistakeholder or it would totally
>     >> unacceptable ...
>     >
>     > What G8 has is "convening power", they can easily get a whole
>     bunch of
>     > multinational CEOs to the table. The same is true of the World
>     Economic
>     > Forum.
>     >
>     > For whatever reason, the IGF is still has some way to go in this
>     regard
>     > - although it got off to a reasonable start in Athens, the last
>     couple
>     > of years I've seen a trend for the main sessions to rely on
>     speakers who
>     > were "there anyway" (for workshops perhaps), rather than because
>     they
>     > wanted to make a special trip to appear.
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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/20110527/8e525881/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  Fri May 27 05:09:13 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 11:09:13 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] IPv4 - IPv6 incompatiblity (was Re: Towards Singapore)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimVH22QhWtLGRQE-u7nshiyjYXSWA@mail.gmail.com> (message
	from McTim on Thu, 26 May 2011 22:38:20 +0300)
References: <C9FE888B.21086%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C01B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <0E9B99D7-AB13-43D4-AC43-D605640BD0BD@post.harvard.edu> <BANLkTinnkeGVxHc=RXTC3gD26KUDxzhp4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <D98DC72E-7390-4D46-9011-7BD03F4D0580@ella.com> <BANLkTimVH22QhWtLGRQE-u7nshiyjYXSWA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110527090914.025EB15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> Certainly the IETF could have made the v6 compatible with v4, but they
> didn't.

In what way would it have been technically possible to make IPv6
compatible with IPv4?

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  Fri May 27 06:18:28 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 12:18:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] CSTD
References: <CA04164D.2137F%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C04D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

For those in Geneva: Is there already a draft CSTD resolution?
 
Thanks
 
wolfgang
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri May 27 06:23:30 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 15:53:30 +0530 (IST)
Subject: [governance] CSTD
In-Reply-To:      <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C04D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.d
     e>
References: <CA04164D.2137F%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
    <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C04D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <44d3fe02c006cfe8ec13946c642a544c.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>

> For those in Geneva: Is there already a draft CSTD resolution?

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


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 27 07:06:30 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:06:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] CSTD
In-Reply-To: <44d3fe02c006cfe8ec13946c642a544c.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
References: <CA04164D.2137F%divina.meigs@orange.fr>    <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C04D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <44d3fe02c006cfe8ec13946c642a544c.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4DDF85B6.3060901@apc.org>

Hello all

I doubt it will be ready until late afternoon. The draft science and
technology resolution is ready. I will forward it.

Anriette


On 27/05/11 12:23, parminder at itforchange.net wrote:
>> For those in Geneva: Is there already a draft CSTD resolution?
> 
> last phase of negotiations... shd be ready in a few hours. parminder
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> wolfgang
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri May 27 14:32:09 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 03:32:09 +0900
Subject: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration
Message-ID: <BANLkTimHUhfm9V_30jyH99OdxRgVcEFrpQ@mail.gmail.com>

<http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110527-Deauville-G8-Declaration-Final-English.pdf>

Nairobi IGF mentioned.  Quite few references to multi- stakeholder
governance. Para 20:  "As we support the multi-stakeholder model of
Internet governance, we call upon all stakeholders to contribute to
enhanced cooperation within and between all international fora dealing
with the governance of the Internet." plus "Governments have a key
role to play in this model."

People less sleepy than me, please read.

Next year?

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 ceo at bnnrc.net  Fri May 27 16:33:03 2011
From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 02:33:03 +0600
Subject: [governance] G8-The Deauville Declaration on Internet Fails to
 Recognise Importance of Human Rights Including Freedom of Expression
Message-ID: <8F047675A1FE4F8A8A1E5BAEFC29C8B0@BNNRCLAPTOP1>






 

PRESS RELEASE 


For immediate release - 27 May 2011


G8-The Deauville Declaration on Internet Fails to Recognise Importance of Human Rights Including Freedom of Expression
London 27.05.11: The Declaration on Internet, developed by the G8 leaders at the Deauville Summit, fails to properly recognize states’ international human rights obligations on freedom of expression and the right to information. We call upon G8 leaders to express a clear political commitment to champion freedom of expression and the right to information on the internet, through G8 agreements and national policies.
The Declaration on “Renewed Commitment for Freedom and Democracy” was released by the leaders of the Group of Eight (G8) on 27 May. It includes 19 paragraphs on internet related issues and principles.

“The internet is more than ‘a helpful tool’ for citizens, as stated in the Declaration. It is a central platform for exercising freedom of expression and opinion in the modern world,” says Dr Agnes Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director. “Freedom of expression on the internet must be fully recognised as a core principle”, continues Dr Callamard.

ARTICLE 19 welcomes the Declaration’ assertion in paragraph 9 that “openness, transparency and freedom” along with non-discrimination and fair competition are ”key to its development and success”. We believe, however, that protection of human rights should be recognised as a core principle above all others rather than only included in a framework to be balanced with rule of law and protection of intellectual property. 

The Declaration’s assertion in paragraph 10 that “the exercise of individual rights and responsibility have to be achieved simultaneously” is particularly concerning. In asserting this, the Declaration ignores the international legal obligations that states owe under international human rights treaties, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”). Human rights, as protected under international law, do not place obligations on citizens. 

In addition, ARTICLE 19 believes that paragraph 11 on freedom of expression fails to fully recognise the international commitments that states must implement. Although the Declaration states that “freedom of opinion, expression, information, assembly and association must be safeguarded on the Internet as elsewhere”, it fails to acknowledge that under international human rights law, restrictions on freedom of expression and the flow of information – including via the Internet – should only be applied in exceptional and limited circumstances. Any restrictions on Internet content therefore must be set clearly in law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be proven as necessary and proportionate. The Declaration only criticises “arbitrary or indiscriminate” censorship, which is weaker than international law and would allow many forms of censorship currently being conducted by countries such as Iran and China. 

ARTICLE 19 is also particularly concerned with paragraph 15 which appears to endorse new restrictions on internet speech by increasing enforcement of intellectual property such as through the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and domestic “three-strikes laws” which fail to fully recognise - and often violate - the right to freedom of expression. 

ARTICLE 19 also notes that while the Declaration positively recognises the importance of the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, the e-G8 Forum held prior to the main meeting was almost entirely made of up governments and corporations and few civil society groups were invited. Similarly, the ACTA negotiations have been held entirely in secret with no public participation. 

ARTICLE 19 calls on the G8 leaders to recognise that freedom of expression and the free flow of information should not be limited through restrictions on the Internet unless in accordance with international human rights law. 

ENDS


NOTES TO EDITORS: 
• For media inquiries, please contact Mona Samari, Senior Press Officer, +44 (0) 7515 828 939 mona at article19.org.
• For more information please contact: David Banisar, Senior Legal Counsel, ARTICLE 19, banisar at article19.org, +44 207 324 2500. 
• The full text of the Declaration is available here: http://www.g20-g8.com/g8-g20/g8/english/live/news/renewed-commitment-for-freedom-and-democracy.1314.html 



 ARTICLE 19 
ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works globally to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees free speech. For more information on ARTICLE 19 please visit www.article19.org or follow article19org on Twitter.


Free Word Centre, 60 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3GA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7324 2500 - Fax: +44 20 7490 0566 - info at article19.org - www.article19.org 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110528/566ba24d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logo.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1868 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110528/566ba24d/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logo-20px.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 878 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110528/566ba24d/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From michael_leibrandt at web.de  Fri May 27 16:50:48 2011
From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 22:50:48 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration
Message-ID: <2062464804.2066595.1306529448373.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb048>


Thanks Adam. Always worth reading G8 Declarations carefully, because quite a number of high-level people had worked on it for months, using diplomatic language in which those things left out are often the real message. My very first impressions:

„Governments, the private sector, users, and other stakeholders all have a role to play in creating an environment in which the Internet can flourish in a balanced manner.“ 

***Even more interesting than the order is the recognition of a 4th stakeholder group. Besides the users there is still a significant part of the society that is – for one reason or the other – not using the net but at the same being affected by the net (as pedestrians are in an automotive community...). Those people don't have a voice yet, and it therefore should be welcomed that the G8 made this statement.

„In Deauville in 2011, for the first time at Leaders’ level, we agreed, in the presence of some leaders of the Internet economy, on a number of key 
principles, including freedom, respect for privacy and intellectual property, multi-stakeholder governance, cyber-security, and protection from crime, that underpin a strong and flourishing Internet.“ 

***The adoption of G8 Principles on Internet Governance together with key players of the business community is more than most observers expected and will definitely have an influence on the future IG debate.
 
„These principles, together with those of non-discrimination and fair competition, must continue to be an essential force behind its development.“

***This might be seen as a strong statement for Net Neutrality. Also mentioned further down.
 
„Their implementation must be included in a broader framework: that of respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of 
intellectual property rights, which inspire life in every democratic society for the benefit of all citizens. We strongly believe that freedom and security, transparency and respect for confidentiality, as well as the exercise of individual rights and responsibility have to be achieved simultaneously.“

***This seems to be an attempt to define what „public interest“ might be with regard to IG. 
 
„In this respect, action from all governments is needed through national policies, but also through the promotion of international cooperation.“ 

***A strong believe that even in the global Internet age nation states have a role to play, but need to act hand in hand („all“). Quite similiar approach as, for example, in the field of tax evasion.
   
„The security of networks and services on the Internet is a multi-stakeholder issue.“

***So other issues are not a multi-stakeholder issue?

„Governments have a role to play, informed by a full range of stakeholders, in helping to develop norms of behaviour and common approaches in 
the use of cyberspace.“ 
 
***Cleary defining a superior role for governments and a supporting role for others. 

„As we support the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, we call upon all stakeholders to contribute to enhanced cooperation within and between all international fora dealing with the governance of the Internet. […] Governments have a key role to play in this model.“

***Again, „key role“ points to a superior role. 

„We welcome the meeting of the e-G8 Forum which took place in Paris on 24 and 25 May, on the eve of our Summit and reaffirm our commitment to the kinds of 
multi-stakeholder efforts that have been essential to the evolution of the Internet economy to date.“

***Sentence would have sounded even better without inserting „economy“ at the end, so that's not by accident...

„We look forward to the forthcoming opportunities to strengthen international    
cooperation in all these areas, including the Internet Governance Forum scheduled next September in Nairobi and other relevant UN events, the OECD High Level Meeting on “The Internet Economy: Generating Innovation and Growth” scheduled next June in Paris, the London International Cyber Conference scheduled next November, and the Avignon Conference on Copyright scheduled next November, as positive steps in taking this important issue forward.“

***Full G8 endorsement for the IGF, but has to been seen in light of the statements above.


Michael
 
 


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Gesendet: 27.05.2011 20:32:09
An: Governance <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Betreff: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration

<http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110527-Deauville-G8-Declaration-Final-English.pdf>

Nairobi IGF mentioned. Quite few references to multi- stakeholder
governance. Para 20: "As we support the multi-stakeholder model of
Internet governance, we call upon all stakeholders to contribute to
enhanced cooperation within and between all international fora dealing
with the governance of the Internet." plus "Governments have a key
role to play in this model."

People less sleepy than me, please read.

Next year?

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

___________________________________________________________
Schon gehört? WEB.DE hat einen genialen Phishing-Filter in die
Toolbar eingebaut! http://produkte.web.de/go/toolbar
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Fri May 27 16:55:44 2011
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:55:44 -0600
Subject: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimHUhfm9V_30jyH99OdxRgVcEFrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimHUhfm9V_30jyH99OdxRgVcEFrpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTim6xts1fVE8CEyKJnFJyJbZL_OBLg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Adam:

I think the paragraph is positive, but I think there is a need to work in
clarifying and increasing awareness on the features a model should comply
with, to be considered multi-stakeholder and therefore avoid the use of it
empty of meaning.

The other part, is that Governments are saying that "enhanced cooperation"
is important for them, and they are opening a space when they say they have
themselves a key role to play in it, but acknowledge, by omission, that they
are not the only players.

Best,

Miguel

Disclaimer
My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my
employer or any other institution

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> <
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110527-Deauville-G8-Declaration-Final-English.pdf
> >
>
> Nairobi IGF mentioned.  Quite few references to multi- stakeholder
> governance. Para 20:  "As we support the multi-stakeholder model of
> Internet governance, we call upon all stakeholders to contribute to
> enhanced cooperation within and between all international fora dealing
> with the governance of the Internet." plus "Governments have a key
> role to play in this model."
>
> People less sleepy than me, please read.
>
> Next year?
>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110527/4789c957/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 May 27 18:15:21 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 00:15:21 +0200
Subject: [governance] CSTD Documents adopted at am session, 27 May
Message-ID: <4DE02279.3020300@apc.org>


Attached are the resolutions adopted by the CSTD this morning. I have
not yet seen the text of the WSIS follow up resolution. I had to leave
around 19h00 and there was still quite a bit of work to do then.

Anriette



    * Draft resolution on "Science and Technology for Development"
    * Draft decision on "Extension of the mandate of the Gender Advisory
      Board of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development"
    * Provisional agenda and Documentation for the 15th session of the
      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: S&T Resolution-27may- adopted.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 48128 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110528/7276f80f/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: provisional15-27may.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 26624 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110528/7276f80f/attachment-0001.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gab-decision.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 24064 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110528/7276f80f/attachment-0002.obj>

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sat May 28 04:40:10 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 10:40:10 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration
References: <2062464804.2066595.1306529448373.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb048>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C055@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Thanks Michael
 
this is a helpful re-reading of the diplomatic Deauville text by somebody who knows how such texts ermerge. 
 
Here are two additional comments:
 
The first point refers to the basic values and to balance conflicting values. From a CS perspective it is very helpful that freedom, democracy and human rights is seen by the eight governments as a central value with regard to the Internet. (para 5, 7 and others). This includes that all efforts to protect other values have to designed in a way that they do NOT undermine freedom, democracy and human rights. The challenge - not touched by the Deauville Declaration - is the right balance in the concrete areas. And here a lot work ist still be done. To be frank I do not see a great step forward since Geneva 2003/Tunis 2005, in contrary there are some steps backwards. 
 
If I compare Articel 42 from the WSIS Geneva Declaration (2003) with the Para.15 of the Deauville Declaration than on the first look this it is more or less the same general language, lacking any precise recommendation how to balance IP protection and access to knowledge. But a second look tells that Deauville can be seen as a step backwards from a citizens point of view. Here are the two texts: 
 

WSIS Geneva 42: "Intellectual Property protection is important to encourage innovation and creativity in the Information Society; similarly, the wide dissemination, diffusion, and sharing of knowledge is important to encourage innovation and creativity." 

 
G 8 Deauville 15: "With regard to the protection of intellectual property, in particular copyright, trademarks, trade secrets and patens, we recognize the need to have national laws and frameworks for improved enforcement. ... We are committed to identifying ways of facilitating greater access and openness to knowledge, eduaction and culture. 
 
This is very "parential" and brings the IP community into a leading role that they will offer "help to identify ways" how people access knowledge, education and culture. This pushes the user in a more passive situation. He has to wait what the "ways" will be which  (generously) are offered to him (top down) for access to knowledge. In my eyes, this is a step backwards. 
 
My second comment goes along the multistakeholder principle. It is a good signal, that the G 8 support clearly in Para. 20 the "multistakeholder model of Internet Governance" as a key principle. Also in other Paras. the G8 refer to multistakeholderism. But if you read the text very carefully, than the G 8 MS model is "multistakeholderism under governmental leadership". The Deauville declaration avoids the terminologgy from WGIG /WSIS which says that all stakeholders participate "in their respective role" (which didn´t say anything about "leadership"). In contrast the G 8 gives governments a "key role". The other stakeholders are invited to help to bridge the digital divide (para 19) and to stimulate the evolution of the Internet economy (para.21). But if it comes to policy development which results in norms and principles than the non-governmental stakeholders - in the eyes of the G 8 - should just "inform" the govenrment so that govenrments can make informed decisions when they develop norms of behaviour and common approaches in the use of cyberspace." (para. 17). This is said in the context of the security paragraph (17), but the context offers that this is also the G 8 proposal for general policy making in the field of cyberspace. Also this is a step backwards with regard to the Tunis Agenda from 2005. 
 
The WGIG definition, adopted by the heads of states (including the G8) in 2005 says: "Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." The G 8 avoids to use the language of "sharing" in the development of principles, norms, rules, decision making procedures and programmes. The G 8 reflects the old hierarchical model: Non-governmental stakeholders can inform (lobby, protest etc.) governments but are excluded in the development of the norms which will rule them.  PDP and decison making remains in the hand of the G8 governments. This is top down and not bootm up. ASnd the whole process how the Deauville Declaration was drafted was also not transparent. 
    
Anyhow it makes sense to study the text carefully and - as Michael has proposed - to look also what was ignored in the text. One point which is not touched by the Deauville Declaration is "Critical Internet Resources" and ICANN (IGF and OECD are mentioned by name).  
 
Bit more deeper analysis will bring more discoveries.  

Best regards

wolfgang


________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Michael Leibrandt
Gesendet: Fr 27.05.2011 22:50
An: Adam Peake; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration




Thanks Adam. Always worth reading G8 Declarations carefully, because quite a number of high-level people had worked on it for months, using diplomatic language in which those things left out are often the real message. My very first impressions:

"Governments, the private sector, users, and other stakeholders all have a role to play in creating an environment in which the Internet can flourish in a balanced manner."

***Even more interesting than the order is the recognition of a 4th stakeholder group. Besides the users there is still a significant part of the society that is - for one reason or the other - not using the net but at the same being affected by the net (as pedestrians are in an automotive community...). Those people don't have a voice yet, and it therefore should be welcomed that the G8 made this statement.

"In Deauville in 2011, for the first time at Leaders' level, we agreed, in the presence of some leaders of the Internet economy, on a number of key
principles, including freedom, respect for privacy and intellectual property, multi-stakeholder governance, cyber-security, and protection from crime, that underpin a strong and flourishing Internet."

***The adoption of G8 Principles on Internet Governance together with key players of the business community is more than most observers expected and will definitely have an influence on the future IG debate.

"These principles, together with those of non-discrimination and fair competition, must continue to be an essential force behind its development."

***This might be seen as a strong statement for Net Neutrality. Also mentioned further down.

"Their implementation must be included in a broader framework: that of respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of
intellectual property rights, which inspire life in every democratic society for the benefit of all citizens. We strongly believe that freedom and security, transparency and respect for confidentiality, as well as the exercise of individual rights and responsibility have to be achieved simultaneously."

***This seems to be an attempt to define what "public interest" might be with regard to IG.

"In this respect, action from all governments is needed through national policies, but also through the promotion of international cooperation."

***A strong believe that even in the global Internet age nation states have a role to play, but need to act hand in hand ("all"). Quite similiar approach as, for example, in the field of tax evasion.
  
"The security of networks and services on the Internet is a multi-stakeholder issue."

***So other issues are not a multi-stakeholder issue?

"Governments have a role to play, informed by a full range of stakeholders, in helping to develop norms of behaviour and common approaches in
the use of cyberspace."

***Cleary defining a superior role for governments and a supporting role for others.

"As we support the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, we call upon all stakeholders to contribute to enhanced cooperation within and between all international fora dealing with the governance of the Internet. [...] Governments have a key role to play in this model."

***Again, "key role" points to a superior role.

"We welcome the meeting of the e-G8 Forum which took place in Paris on 24 and 25 May, on the eve of our Summit and reaffirm our commitment to the kinds of
multi-stakeholder efforts that have been essential to the evolution of the Internet economy to date."

***Sentence would have sounded even better without inserting "economy" at the end, so that's not by accident...

"We look forward to the forthcoming opportunities to strengthen international   
cooperation in all these areas, including the Internet Governance Forum scheduled next September in Nairobi and other relevant UN events, the OECD High Level Meeting on "The Internet Economy: Generating Innovation and Growth" scheduled next June in Paris, the London International Cyber Conference scheduled next November, and the Avignon Conference on Copyright scheduled next November, as positive steps in taking this important issue forward."

***Full G8 endorsement for the IGF, but has to been seen in light of the statements above.


Michael




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Gesendet: 27.05.2011 20:32:09
An: Governance <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Betreff: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration

<http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110527-Deauville-G8-Declaration-Final-English.pdf>

Nairobi IGF mentioned. Quite few references to multi- stakeholder
governance. Para 20: "As we support the multi-stakeholder model of
Internet governance, we call upon all stakeholders to contribute to
enhanced cooperation within and between all international fora dealing
with the governance of the Internet." plus "Governments have a key
role to play in this model."

People less sleepy than me, please read.

Next year?

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

___________________________________________________________
Schon gehört? WEB.DE hat einen genialen Phishing-Filter in die
Toolbar eingebaut! http://produkte.web.de/go/toolbar
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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



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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 28 10:18:28 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 11:18:28 -0300
Subject: [governance] CSTD Documents adopted at am session, 27 May
In-Reply-To: <4DE02279.3020300@apc.org>
References: <4DE02279.3020300@apc.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimzekXNcBTYWibYv4FxawTGOA0BHw@mail.gmail.com>

A breakthrough on WSIS follow up resolution was achieved close to midnight.
Consensus was really hard.
The resolution includes an extension of the mandate of the CSTDWG
Hope to be able to write more soon.
Marilia

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

>
> Attached are the resolutions adopted by the CSTD this morning. I have
> not yet seen the text of the WSIS follow up resolution. I had to leave
> around 19h00 and there was still quite a bit of work to do then.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>    * Draft resolution on "Science and Technology for Development"
>    * Draft decision on "Extension of the mandate of the Gender Advisory
>      Board of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development"
>    * Provisional agenda and Documentation for the 15th session of the
>      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
>
>


-- 
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/20110528/622c6270/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 michael_leibrandt at web.de  Sun May 29 03:21:17 2011
From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt)
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 09:21:17 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration
Message-ID: <726588291.1861211.1306653677546.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb065>

Dear Wolfgang,

Thanks for pointing to the missing ICANN link in the Deauville Decleration. Looking at the Principles, I think that this doesn't come as a surprise. If someone sees a „key role“ for governments with regard to IG public policy making, it's consequent not to mention a setting in which government clearly don't have this key role. My feeling is that among governments ICANN is widely accepted now a a technical coordination body, but at the same time there is a growing discomfort with civil servants travelling around the world on the tax payers account to advice an US private entity. If I would work for a national Federal Audit Office, I would at least take a closer look. For many reasons, including the legal setting, governments will never be able to exercise „ultimate public policy authority“ in the ICANN framework. My expectation is that in the long run the GAC part of ICANN will be outsourced to some kind of new or existing IGO. And than we will have lots of fun to debate the formal link between ICANN and that entity.

P.S.: I'm well aware of the fact that people on this list have different views regarding the public policy authority of governments, and that's good. In my opinion, something like Germany's now surprisingly quick exit from nuclear energy would not be possible in a „nuclear industry led bottom-up multi-stakeholder forum“. What we learned since the early years of the industrial revolution is that it's sometimes helpful to have strong political power to balance economic power.
 
Cheers,
 
Michael


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Gesendet: 28.05.2011 10:40:10
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de>, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>, governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: AW: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration

Thanks Michael

this is a helpful re-reading of the diplomatic Deauville text by somebody who knows how such texts ermerge.

Here are two additional comments:

The first point refers to the basic values and to balance conflicting values. From a CS perspective it is very helpful that freedom, democracy and human rights is seen by the eight governments as a central value with regard to the Internet. (para 5, 7 and others). This includes that all efforts to protect other values have to designed in a way that they do NOT undermine freedom, democracy and human rights. The challenge - not touched by the Deauville Declaration - is the right balance in the concrete areas. And here a lot work ist still be done. To be frank I do not see a great step forward since Geneva 2003/Tunis 2005, in contrary there are some steps backwards.

If I compare Articel 42 from the WSIS Geneva Declaration (2003) with the Para.15 of the Deauville Declaration than on the first look this it is more or less the same general language, lacking any precise recommendation how to balance IP protection and access to knowledge. But a second look tells that Deauville can be seen as a step backwards from a citizens point of view. Here are the two texts:


WSIS Geneva 42: "Intellectual Property protection is important to encourage innovation and creativity in the Information Society; similarly, the wide dissemination, diffusion, and sharing of knowledge is important to encourage innovation and creativity."


G 8 Deauville 15: "With regard to the protection of intellectual property, in particular copyright, trademarks, trade secrets and patens, we recognize the need to have national laws and frameworks for improved enforcement. ... We are committed to identifying ways of facilitating greater access and openness to knowledge, eduaction and culture.

This is very "parential" and brings the IP community into a leading role that they will offer "help to identify ways" how people access knowledge, education and culture. This pushes the user in a more passive situation. He has to wait what the "ways" will be which (generously) are offered to him (top down) for access to knowledge. In my eyes, this is a step backwards.

My second comment goes along the multistakeholder principle. It is a good signal, that the G 8 support clearly in Para. 20 the "multistakeholder model of Internet Governance" as a key principle. Also in other Paras. the G8 refer to multistakeholderism. But if you read the text very carefully, than the G 8 MS model is "multistakeholderism under governmental leadership". The Deauville declaration avoids the terminologgy from WGIG /WSIS which says that all stakeholders participate "in their respective role" (which didn´t say anything about "leadership"). In contrast the G 8 gives governments a "key role". The other stakeholders are invited to help to bridge the digital divide (para 19) and to stimulate the evolution of the Internet economy (para.21). But if it comes to policy development which results in norms and principles than the non-governmental stakeholders - in the eyes of the G 8 - should just "inform" the govenrment so that govenrments can make informed decisions when they develop norms of behaviour and common approaches in the use of cyberspace." (para. 17). This is said in the context of the security paragraph (17), but the context offers that this is also the G 8 proposal for general policy making in the field of cyberspace. Also this is a step backwards with regard to the Tunis Agenda from 2005.

The WGIG definition, adopted by the heads of states (including the G8) in 2005 says: "Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." The G 8 avoids to use the language of "sharing" in the development of principles, norms, rules, decision making procedures and programmes. The G 8 reflects the old hierarchical model: Non-governmental stakeholders can inform (lobby, protest etc.) governments but are excluded in the development of the norms which will rule them. PDP and decison making remains in the hand of the G8 governments. This is top down and not bootm up. ASnd the whole process how the Deauville Declaration was drafted was also not transparent.

Anyhow it makes sense to study the text carefully and - as Michael has proposed - to look also what was ignored in the text. One point which is not touched by the Deauville Declaration is "Critical Internet Resources" and ICANN (IGF and OECD are mentioned by name).

Bit more deeper analysis will bring more discoveries.

Best regards

wolfgang


________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Michael Leibrandt
Gesendet: Fr 27.05.2011 22:50
An: Adam Peake; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration




Thanks Adam. Always worth reading G8 Declarations carefully, because quite a number of high-level people had worked on it for months, using diplomatic language in which those things left out are often the real message. My very first impressions:

"Governments, the private sector, users, and other stakeholders all have a role to play in creating an environment in which the Internet can flourish in a balanced manner."

***Even more interesting than the order is the recognition of a 4th stakeholder group. Besides the users there is still a significant part of the society that is - for one reason or the other - not using the net but at the same being affected by the net (as pedestrians are in an automotive community...). Those people don't have a voice yet, and it therefore should be welcomed that the G8 made this statement.

"In Deauville in 2011, for the first time at Leaders' level, we agreed, in the presence of some leaders of the Internet economy, on a number of key
principles, including freedom, respect for privacy and intellectual property, multi-stakeholder governance, cyber-security, and protection from crime, that underpin a strong and flourishing Internet."

***The adoption of G8 Principles on Internet Governance together with key players of the business community is more than most observers expected and will definitely have an influence on the future IG debate.

"These principles, together with those of non-discrimination and fair competition, must continue to be an essential force behind its development."

***This might be seen as a strong statement for Net Neutrality. Also mentioned further down.

"Their implementation must be included in a broader framework: that of respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of
intellectual property rights, which inspire life in every democratic society for the benefit of all citizens. We strongly believe that freedom and security, transparency and respect for confidentiality, as well as the exercise of individual rights and responsibility have to be achieved simultaneously."

***This seems to be an attempt to define what "public interest" might be with regard to IG.

"In this respect, action from all governments is needed through national policies, but also through the promotion of international cooperation."

***A strong believe that even in the global Internet age nation states have a role to play, but need to act hand in hand ("all"). Quite similiar approach as, for example, in the field of tax evasion.

"The security of networks and services on the Internet is a multi-stakeholder issue."

***So other issues are not a multi-stakeholder issue?

"Governments have a role to play, informed by a full range of stakeholders, in helping to develop norms of behaviour and common approaches in
the use of cyberspace."

***Cleary defining a superior role for governments and a supporting role for others.

"As we support the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, we call upon all stakeholders to contribute to enhanced cooperation within and between all international fora dealing with the governance of the Internet. [...] Governments have a key role to play in this model."

***Again, "key role" points to a superior role.

"We welcome the meeting of the e-G8 Forum which took place in Paris on 24 and 25 May, on the eve of our Summit and reaffirm our commitment to the kinds of
multi-stakeholder efforts that have been essential to the evolution of the Internet economy to date."

***Sentence would have sounded even better without inserting "economy" at the end, so that's not by accident...

"We look forward to the forthcoming opportunities to strengthen international
cooperation in all these areas, including the Internet Governance Forum scheduled next September in Nairobi and other relevant UN events, the OECD High Level Meeting on "The Internet Economy: Generating Innovation and Growth" scheduled next June in Paris, the London International Cyber Conference scheduled next November, and the Avignon Conference on Copyright scheduled next November, as positive steps in taking this important issue forward."

***Full G8 endorsement for the IGF, but has to been seen in light of the statements above.


Michael




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Gesendet: 27.05.2011 20:32:09
An: Governance <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Betreff: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration

<http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110527-Deauville-G8-Declaration-Final-English.pdf>

Nairobi IGF mentioned. Quite few references to multi- stakeholder
governance. Para 20: "As we support the multi-stakeholder model of
Internet governance, we call upon all stakeholders to contribute to
enhanced cooperation within and between all international fora dealing
with the governance of the Internet." plus "Governments have a key
role to play in this model."

People less sleepy than me, please read.

Next year?

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

___________________________________________________________
Schon gehört? WEB.DE hat einen genialen Phishing-Filter in die
Toolbar eingebaut! http://produkte.web.de/go/toolbar
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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



___________________________________________________________
Schon gehört? WEB.DE hat einen genialen Phishing-Filter in die
Toolbar eingebaut! http://produkte.web.de/go/toolbar
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun May 29 03:32:18 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 09:32:18 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration
References: <726588291.1861211.1306653677546.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb065>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C05C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Michael
What we learned since the early years of the industrial revolution is that it's sometimes helpful to have strong political power to balance economic power.

Wolfgang:
Yes this is correct and I fully agree. However in todays world there is a missing element in this bilateral conflict-cooperation  (public-private) partnership and this "missing link" is what we call today the civil society (the citizen, at-large, the individual Internet user etc.). You can certainly argue that the government represents the civil society and, in a representative democracy  - to a certain degree - this is true. On the other hand, in our complex world the chain of representation - even in a democratic country - is so long that the input the civil society gives with its vote in democratic election does very often not produce the expected output at the other end of the chain of representation and the risk for 2hidden deals" between the two PP-partners is rather high. Insofar it is only natural that a third voice should sit on the table when government and industry is negotiating terms of conduct. If in Internet Governance big government goes together with big industry the small user is the big looser. 
 
Best regards

wolfgang

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

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

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


From michael_leibrandt at web.de  Sun May 29 04:05:05 2011
From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt)
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 10:05:05 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration
Message-ID: <925514030.1865695.1306656305333.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb065>

Dear Wolfgang,

As usual, I agree with most of what you said. The only serious problem I have is with your statement "[...] does very often not produce the expected output [...]. This suggests that there is always a "right" and a "wrong" outcome. But policy is not science. In elections people choose between different sets of values which will than be applied to individual issues where there is no simple "good" or "bad". It's not unlikely that in a democracy 49% of the citizens don't agree with that choosen set of values. That's why governments have to open up and listen to all citizens (not only self-selected pressure groups). But listening - for example in the framework of public hearings - is time consuming, so there is always a trade-off between beeing inclusive and being quick. As you know especially the Internet community is traditionally looking for quick decisions; back in 1997 that was one of the strongest arguments for the ICANN model.

Cheers,

Michael


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Gesendet: 29.05.2011 09:32:18
An: "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de>, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>, governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: AW: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration

Michael
What we learned since the early years of the industrial revolution is that it's sometimes helpful to have strong political power to balance economic power.

Wolfgang:
Yes this is correct and I fully agree. However in todays world there is a missing element in this bilateral conflict-cooperation (public-private) partnership and this "missing link" is what we call today the civil society (the citizen, at-large, the individual Internet user etc.). You can certainly argue that the government represents the civil society and, in a representative democracy - to a certain degree - this is true. On the other hand, in our complex world the chain of representation - even in a democratic country - is so long that the input the civil society gives with its vote in democratic election does very often not produce the expected output at the other end of the chain of representation and the risk for 2hidden deals" between the two PP-partners is rather high. Insofar it is only natural that a third voice should sit on the table when government and industry is negotiating terms of conduct. If in Internet Governance big government goes together with big industry the small user is the big looser.

Best regards

wolfgang

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

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

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

___________________________________________________________
Schon gehört? WEB.DE hat einen genialen Phishing-Filter in die
Toolbar eingebaut! http://produkte.web.de/go/toolbar
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Sun May 29 07:09:43 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 13:09:43 +0200
Subject: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration
In-Reply-To: <726588291.1861211.1306653677546.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb065>
References: <726588291.1861211.1306653677546.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb065>
Message-ID: <4DE22977.6020701@wzb.eu>




> P.S.: I'm well aware of the fact that people on this list have
> different views regarding the public policy authority of governments,
> and that's good. In my opinion, something like Germany's now
> surprisingly quick exit from nuclear energy would not be possible in
> a „nuclear industry led bottom-up multi-stakeholder forum“. What we
> learned since the early years of the industrial revolution is that
> it's sometimes helpful to have strong political power to balance
> economic power.

Hi Michael,

Germany's exit from nuclear power is not the rule, it is the exception 
as far as public-private coordination is concerned. Governments can be 
subject to capture as much as private entities such as ICANN. If one 
compares ICANN's response to trademark lobbying it doesn't look much 
different from the response of, more or less, all OECD countries to 
intellectual property interests in general. Sadly, public authority 
doesn't often provide the independent "strong political power" able to 
balance economic power.

While it is true that a multistakeholder setting wouldn't agree on an 
exit from nuclear power, there is no guarantee that civil society 
interests are adequately reflected in government regulation. Germany's 
exist from nuclear power has to be interpreted against its historical 
background. As you probably remember, the German government had very 
recently extended the lifetime of some ancient nuclear power stations 
against the majority of the voters.

jeanette

> Cheers,
>
> Michael
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: "Kleinwächter,
> Wolfgang"<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Gesendet:
> 28.05.2011 10:40:10 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Michael
> Leibrandt"<michael_leibrandt at web.de>, "Adam Peake"<ajp at glocom.ac.jp>,
> governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: AW: [governance] G8 Deauville
> Declaration
>
> Thanks Michael
>
> this is a helpful re-reading of the diplomatic Deauville text by
> somebody who knows how such texts ermerge.
>
> Here are two additional comments:
>
> The first point refers to the basic values and to balance conflicting
> values. From a CS perspective it is very helpful that freedom,
> democracy and human rights is seen by the eight governments as a
> central value with regard to the Internet. (para 5, 7 and others).
> This includes that all efforts to protect other values have to
> designed in a way that they do NOT undermine freedom, democracy and
> human rights. The challenge - not touched by the Deauville
> Declaration - is the right balance in the concrete areas. And here a
> lot work ist still be done. To be frank I do not see a great step
> forward since Geneva 2003/Tunis 2005, in contrary there are some
> steps backwards.
>
> If I compare Articel 42 from the WSIS Geneva Declaration (2003) with
> the Para.15 of the Deauville Declaration than on the first look this
> it is more or less the same general language, lacking any precise
> recommendation how to balance IP protection and access to knowledge.
> But a second look tells that Deauville can be seen as a step
> backwards from a citizens point of view. Here are the two texts:
>
>
> WSIS Geneva 42: "Intellectual Property protection is important to
> encourage innovation and creativity in the Information Society;
> similarly, the wide dissemination, diffusion, and sharing of
> knowledge is important to encourage innovation and creativity."
>
>
> G 8 Deauville 15: "With regard to the protection of intellectual
> property, in particular copyright, trademarks, trade secrets and
> patens, we recognize the need to have national laws and frameworks
> for improved enforcement. ... We are committed to identifying ways of
> facilitating greater access and openness to knowledge, eduaction and
> culture.
>
> This is very "parential" and brings the IP community into a leading
> role that they will offer "help to identify ways" how people access
> knowledge, education and culture. This pushes the user in a more
> passive situation. He has to wait what the "ways" will be which
> (generously) are offered to him (top down) for access to knowledge.
> In my eyes, this is a step backwards.
>
> My second comment goes along the multistakeholder principle. It is a
> good signal, that the G 8 support clearly in Para. 20 the
> "multistakeholder model of Internet Governance" as a key principle.
> Also in other Paras. the G8 refer to multistakeholderism. But if you
> read the text very carefully, than the G 8 MS model is
> "multistakeholderism under governmental leadership". The Deauville
> declaration avoids the terminologgy from WGIG /WSIS which says that
> all stakeholders participate "in their respective role" (which didn´t
> say anything about "leadership"). In contrast the G 8 gives
> governments a "key role". The other stakeholders are invited to help
> to bridge the digital divide (para 19) and to stimulate the evolution
> of the Internet economy (para.21). But if it comes to policy
> development which results in norms and principles than the
> non-governmental stakeholders - in the eyes of the G 8 - should just
> "inform" the govenrment so that govenrments can make informed
> decisions when they develop norms of behaviour and common approaches
> in the use of cyberspace." (para. 17). This is said in the context of
> the security paragraph (17), but the context offers that this is also
> the G 8 proposal for general policy making in the field of
> cyberspace. Also this is a step backwards with regard to the Tunis
> Agenda from 2005.
>
> The WGIG definition, adopted by the heads of states (including the
> G8) in 2005 says: "Internet governance is the development and
> application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in
> their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules,
> decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution
> and use of the Internet." The G 8 avoids to use the language of
> "sharing" in the development of principles, norms, rules, decision
> making procedures and programmes. The G 8 reflects the old
> hierarchical model: Non-governmental stakeholders can inform (lobby,
> protest etc.) governments but are excluded in the development of the
> norms which will rule them. PDP and decison making remains in the
> hand of the G8 governments. This is top down and not bootm up. ASnd
> the whole process how the Deauville Declaration was drafted was also
> not transparent.
>
> Anyhow it makes sense to study the text carefully and - as Michael
> has proposed - to look also what was ignored in the text. One point
> which is not touched by the Deauville Declaration is "Critical
> Internet Resources" and ICANN (IGF and OECD are mentioned by name).
>
> Bit more deeper analysis will bring more discoveries.
>
> Best regards
>
> wolfgang
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Michael Leibrandt
> Gesendet: Fr 27.05.2011 22:50 An: Adam Peake;
> governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] G8 Deauville
> Declaration
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Adam. Always worth reading G8 Declarations carefully, because
> quite a number of high-level people had worked on it for months,
> using diplomatic language in which those things left out are often
> the real message. My very first impressions:
>
> "Governments, the private sector, users, and other stakeholders all
> have a role to play in creating an environment in which the Internet
> can flourish in a balanced manner."
>
> ***Even more interesting than the order is the recognition of a 4th
> stakeholder group. Besides the users there is still a significant
> part of the society that is - for one reason or the other - not using
> the net but at the same being affected by the net (as pedestrians are
> in an automotive community...). Those people don't have a voice yet,
> and it therefore should be welcomed that the G8 made this statement.
>
> "In Deauville in 2011, for the first time at Leaders' level, we
> agreed, in the presence of some leaders of the Internet economy, on a
> number of key principles, including freedom, respect for privacy and
> intellectual property, multi-stakeholder governance, cyber-security,
> and protection from crime, that underpin a strong and flourishing
> Internet."
>
> ***The adoption of G8 Principles on Internet Governance together with
> key players of the business community is more than most observers
> expected and will definitely have an influence on the future IG
> debate.
>
> "These principles, together with those of non-discrimination and fair
> competition, must continue to be an essential force behind its
> development."
>
> ***This might be seen as a strong statement for Net Neutrality. Also
> mentioned further down.
>
> "Their implementation must be included in a broader framework: that
> of respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental
> freedoms, the protection of intellectual property rights, which
> inspire life in every democratic society for the benefit of all
> citizens. We strongly believe that freedom and security, transparency
> and respect for confidentiality, as well as the exercise of
> individual rights and responsibility have to be achieved
> simultaneously."
>
> ***This seems to be an attempt to define what "public interest" might
> be with regard to IG.
>
> "In this respect, action from all governments is needed through
> national policies, but also through the promotion of international
> cooperation."
>
> ***A strong believe that even in the global Internet age nation
> states have a role to play, but need to act hand in hand ("all").
> Quite similiar approach as, for example, in the field of tax
> evasion.
>
> "The security of networks and services on the Internet is a
> multi-stakeholder issue."
>
> ***So other issues are not a multi-stakeholder issue?
>
> "Governments have a role to play, informed by a full range of
> stakeholders, in helping to develop norms of behaviour and common
> approaches in the use of cyberspace."
>
> ***Cleary defining a superior role for governments and a supporting
> role for others.
>
> "As we support the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, we
> call upon all stakeholders to contribute to enhanced cooperation
> within and between all international fora dealing with the governance
> of the Internet. [...] Governments have a key role to play in this
> model."
>
> ***Again, "key role" points to a superior role.
>
> "We welcome the meeting of the e-G8 Forum which took place in Paris
> on 24 and 25 May, on the eve of our Summit and reaffirm our
> commitment to the kinds of multi-stakeholder efforts that have been
> essential to the evolution of the Internet economy to date."
>
> ***Sentence would have sounded even better without inserting
> "economy" at the end, so that's not by accident...
>
> "We look forward to the forthcoming opportunities to strengthen
> international cooperation in all these areas, including the Internet
> Governance Forum scheduled next September in Nairobi and other
> relevant UN events, the OECD High Level Meeting on "The Internet
> Economy: Generating Innovation and Growth" scheduled next June in
> Paris, the London International Cyber Conference scheduled next
> November, and the Avignon Conference on Copyright scheduled next
> November, as positive steps in taking this important issue forward."
>
> ***Full G8 endorsement for the IGF, but has to been seen in light of
> the statements above.
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: "Adam
> Peake"<ajp at glocom.ac.jp> Gesendet: 27.05.2011 20:32:09 An:
> Governance<governance at lists.cpsr.org> Betreff: [governance] G8
> Deauville Declaration
>
> <http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110527-Deauville-G8-Declaration-Final-English.pdf>
>
>  Nairobi IGF mentioned. Quite few references to multi- stakeholder
> governance. Para 20: "As we support the multi-stakeholder model of
> Internet governance, we call upon all stakeholders to contribute to
> enhanced cooperation within and between all international fora
> dealing with the governance of the Internet." plus "Governments have
> a key role to play in this model."
>
> People less sleepy than me, please read.
>
> Next year?
>
> 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
>
> ___________________________________________________________ Schon
> gehört? WEB.DE hat einen genialen Phishing-Filter in die Toolbar
> eingebaut! http://produkte.web.de/go/toolbar
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and
> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ Schon
> gehört? WEB.DE hat einen genialen Phishing-Filter in die Toolbar
> eingebaut! http://produkte.web.de/go/toolbar
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and
> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ca at cafonso.ca  Sun May 29 09:39:49 2011
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 10:39:49 -0300
Subject: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration
In-Reply-To: <4DE22977.6020701@wzb.eu>
References: <726588291.1861211.1306653677546.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb065> <4DE22977.6020701@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4DE24CA5.1080209@cafonso.ca>

Welcome to harsh reality! Great, Jeanette.

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 05/29/2011 08:09 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> P.S.: I'm well aware of the fact that people on this list have
>> different views regarding the public policy authority of governments,
>> and that's good. In my opinion, something like Germany's now
>> surprisingly quick exit from nuclear energy would not be possible in
>> a „nuclear industry led bottom-up multi-stakeholder forum“. What we
>> learned since the early years of the industrial revolution is that
>> it's sometimes helpful to have strong political power to balance
>> economic power.
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Germany's exit from nuclear power is not the rule, it is the exception
> as far as public-private coordination is concerned. Governments can be
> subject to capture as much as private entities such as ICANN. If one
> compares ICANN's response to trademark lobbying it doesn't look much
> different from the response of, more or less, all OECD countries to
> intellectual property interests in general. Sadly, public authority
> doesn't often provide the independent "strong political power" able to
> balance economic power.
> 
> While it is true that a multistakeholder setting wouldn't agree on an
> exit from nuclear power, there is no guarantee that civil society
> interests are adequately reflected in government regulation. Germany's
> exist from nuclear power has to be interpreted against its historical
> background. As you probably remember, the German government had very
> recently extended the lifetime of some ancient nuclear power stations
> against the majority of the voters.
> 
> jeanette
> 
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: "Kleinwächter,
>> Wolfgang"<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Gesendet:
>> 28.05.2011 10:40:10 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Michael
>> Leibrandt"<michael_leibrandt at web.de>, "Adam Peake"<ajp at glocom.ac.jp>,
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: AW: [governance] G8 Deauville
>> Declaration
>>
>> Thanks Michael
>>
>> this is a helpful re-reading of the diplomatic Deauville text by
>> somebody who knows how such texts ermerge.
>>
>> Here are two additional comments:
>>
>> The first point refers to the basic values and to balance conflicting
>> values. From a CS perspective it is very helpful that freedom,
>> democracy and human rights is seen by the eight governments as a
>> central value with regard to the Internet. (para 5, 7 and others).
>> This includes that all efforts to protect other values have to
>> designed in a way that they do NOT undermine freedom, democracy and
>> human rights. The challenge - not touched by the Deauville
>> Declaration - is the right balance in the concrete areas. And here a
>> lot work ist still be done. To be frank I do not see a great step
>> forward since Geneva 2003/Tunis 2005, in contrary there are some
>> steps backwards.
>>
>> If I compare Articel 42 from the WSIS Geneva Declaration (2003) with
>> the Para.15 of the Deauville Declaration than on the first look this
>> it is more or less the same general language, lacking any precise
>> recommendation how to balance IP protection and access to knowledge.
>> But a second look tells that Deauville can be seen as a step
>> backwards from a citizens point of view. Here are the two texts:
>>
>>
>> WSIS Geneva 42: "Intellectual Property protection is important to
>> encourage innovation and creativity in the Information Society;
>> similarly, the wide dissemination, diffusion, and sharing of
>> knowledge is important to encourage innovation and creativity."
>>
>>
>> G 8 Deauville 15: "With regard to the protection of intellectual
>> property, in particular copyright, trademarks, trade secrets and
>> patens, we recognize the need to have national laws and frameworks
>> for improved enforcement. ... We are committed to identifying ways of
>> facilitating greater access and openness to knowledge, eduaction and
>> culture.
>>
>> This is very "parential" and brings the IP community into a leading
>> role that they will offer "help to identify ways" how people access
>> knowledge, education and culture. This pushes the user in a more
>> passive situation. He has to wait what the "ways" will be which
>> (generously) are offered to him (top down) for access to knowledge.
>> In my eyes, this is a step backwards.
>>
>> My second comment goes along the multistakeholder principle. It is a
>> good signal, that the G 8 support clearly in Para. 20 the
>> "multistakeholder model of Internet Governance" as a key principle.
>> Also in other Paras. the G8 refer to multistakeholderism. But if you
>> read the text very carefully, than the G 8 MS model is
>> "multistakeholderism under governmental leadership". The Deauville
>> declaration avoids the terminologgy from WGIG /WSIS which says that
>> all stakeholders participate "in their respective role" (which didn´t
>> say anything about "leadership"). In contrast the G 8 gives
>> governments a "key role". The other stakeholders are invited to help
>> to bridge the digital divide (para 19) and to stimulate the evolution
>> of the Internet economy (para.21). But if it comes to policy
>> development which results in norms and principles than the
>> non-governmental stakeholders - in the eyes of the G 8 - should just
>> "inform" the govenrment so that govenrments can make informed
>> decisions when they develop norms of behaviour and common approaches
>> in the use of cyberspace." (para. 17). This is said in the context of
>> the security paragraph (17), but the context offers that this is also
>> the G 8 proposal for general policy making in the field of
>> cyberspace. Also this is a step backwards with regard to the Tunis
>> Agenda from 2005.
>>
>> The WGIG definition, adopted by the heads of states (including the
>> G8) in 2005 says: "Internet governance is the development and
>> application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in
>> their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules,
>> decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution
>> and use of the Internet." The G 8 avoids to use the language of
>> "sharing" in the development of principles, norms, rules, decision
>> making procedures and programmes. The G 8 reflects the old
>> hierarchical model: Non-governmental stakeholders can inform (lobby,
>> protest etc.) governments but are excluded in the development of the
>> norms which will rule them. PDP and decison making remains in the
>> hand of the G8 governments. This is top down and not bootm up. ASnd
>> the whole process how the Deauville Declaration was drafted was also
>> not transparent.
>>
>> Anyhow it makes sense to study the text carefully and - as Michael
>> has proposed - to look also what was ignored in the text. One point
>> which is not touched by the Deauville Declaration is "Critical
>> Internet Resources" and ICANN (IGF and OECD are mentioned by name).
>>
>> Bit more deeper analysis will bring more discoveries.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> wolfgang
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Michael Leibrandt
>> Gesendet: Fr 27.05.2011 22:50 An: Adam Peake;
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] G8 Deauville
>> Declaration
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Adam. Always worth reading G8 Declarations carefully, because
>> quite a number of high-level people had worked on it for months,
>> using diplomatic language in which those things left out are often
>> the real message. My very first impressions:
>>
>> "Governments, the private sector, users, and other stakeholders all
>> have a role to play in creating an environment in which the Internet
>> can flourish in a balanced manner."
>>
>> ***Even more interesting than the order is the recognition of a 4th
>> stakeholder group. Besides the users there is still a significant
>> part of the society that is - for one reason or the other - not using
>> the net but at the same being affected by the net (as pedestrians are
>> in an automotive community...). Those people don't have a voice yet,
>> and it therefore should be welcomed that the G8 made this statement.
>>
>> "In Deauville in 2011, for the first time at Leaders' level, we
>> agreed, in the presence of some leaders of the Internet economy, on a
>> number of key principles, including freedom, respect for privacy and
>> intellectual property, multi-stakeholder governance, cyber-security,
>> and protection from crime, that underpin a strong and flourishing
>> Internet."
>>
>> ***The adoption of G8 Principles on Internet Governance together with
>> key players of the business community is more than most observers
>> expected and will definitely have an influence on the future IG
>> debate.
>>
>> "These principles, together with those of non-discrimination and fair
>> competition, must continue to be an essential force behind its
>> development."
>>
>> ***This might be seen as a strong statement for Net Neutrality. Also
>> mentioned further down.
>>
>> "Their implementation must be included in a broader framework: that
>> of respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental
>> freedoms, the protection of intellectual property rights, which
>> inspire life in every democratic society for the benefit of all
>> citizens. We strongly believe that freedom and security, transparency
>> and respect for confidentiality, as well as the exercise of
>> individual rights and responsibility have to be achieved
>> simultaneously."
>>
>> ***This seems to be an attempt to define what "public interest" might
>> be with regard to IG.
>>
>> "In this respect, action from all governments is needed through
>> national policies, but also through the promotion of international
>> cooperation."
>>
>> ***A strong believe that even in the global Internet age nation
>> states have a role to play, but need to act hand in hand ("all").
>> Quite similiar approach as, for example, in the field of tax
>> evasion.
>>
>> "The security of networks and services on the Internet is a
>> multi-stakeholder issue."
>>
>> ***So other issues are not a multi-stakeholder issue?
>>
>> "Governments have a role to play, informed by a full range of
>> stakeholders, in helping to develop norms of behaviour and common
>> approaches in the use of cyberspace."
>>
>> ***Cleary defining a superior role for governments and a supporting
>> role for others.
>>
>> "As we support the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, we
>> call upon all stakeholders to contribute to enhanced cooperation
>> within and between all international fora dealing with the governance
>> of the Internet. [...] Governments have a key role to play in this
>> model."
>>
>> ***Again, "key role" points to a superior role.
>>
>> "We welcome the meeting of the e-G8 Forum which took place in Paris
>> on 24 and 25 May, on the eve of our Summit and reaffirm our
>> commitment to the kinds of multi-stakeholder efforts that have been
>> essential to the evolution of the Internet economy to date."
>>
>> ***Sentence would have sounded even better without inserting
>> "economy" at the end, so that's not by accident...
>>
>> "We look forward to the forthcoming opportunities to strengthen
>> international cooperation in all these areas, including the Internet
>> Governance Forum scheduled next September in Nairobi and other
>> relevant UN events, the OECD High Level Meeting on "The Internet
>> Economy: Generating Innovation and Growth" scheduled next June in
>> Paris, the London International Cyber Conference scheduled next
>> November, and the Avignon Conference on Copyright scheduled next
>> November, as positive steps in taking this important issue forward."
>>
>> ***Full G8 endorsement for the IGF, but has to been seen in light of
>> the statements above.
>>
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: "Adam
>> Peake"<ajp at glocom.ac.jp> Gesendet: 27.05.2011 20:32:09 An:
>> Governance<governance at lists.cpsr.org> Betreff: [governance] G8
>> Deauville Declaration
>>
>> <http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110527-Deauville-G8-Declaration-Final-English.pdf>
>>
>>
>>  Nairobi IGF mentioned. Quite few references to multi- stakeholder
>> governance. Para 20: "As we support the multi-stakeholder model of
>> Internet governance, we call upon all stakeholders to contribute to
>> enhanced cooperation within and between all international fora
>> dealing with the governance of the Internet." plus "Governments have
>> a key role to play in this model."
>>
>> People less sleepy than me, please read.
>>
>> Next year?
>>
>> 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
>>
>> ___________________________________________________________ Schon
>> gehört? WEB.DE hat einen genialen Phishing-Filter in die Toolbar
>> eingebaut! http://produkte.web.de/go/toolbar
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and
>> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________________________________ Schon
>> gehört? WEB.DE hat einen genialen Phishing-Filter in die Toolbar
>> eingebaut! http://produkte.web.de/go/toolbar
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and
>> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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  Sun May 29 10:33:10 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 16:33:10 +0200
Subject: [governance] E-G8 debriefing in the news
Message-ID: <CA0825C6.21553%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Dear colleagues

For your information and in case you care to listen to some French
programming, some debriefing of the e-G8 will take place in two programmes
on France Culture: 
    Place de la toile, this Sunday 29th May, 17-18 pm
    Enjeux internationaux, this Monday 30th May, 7h18 à 7h27

Best
Divina 
ps: they can be podcasted all week long
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110529/10a7e492/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 amalidesilva at yahoo.com  Sun May 29 22:04:44 2011
From: amalidesilva at yahoo.com (Amali De Silva)
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 19:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <CA02EB3C.19228%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <309278.24388.qm@web112318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Civil society plees for representation have been heard NYT article - needs an organized input for future meetings - to echo others on this list ..
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/technology/30tech.html?pagewanted=1&ref=technology

Amali De Silva - Mitchell ( personal note )
Vancouver Canada 









Private & Confidential 
 
 

--- On Wed, 5/25/11, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:


From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] : e-G8 forum
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Received: Wednesday, May 25, 2011, 2:22 AM


Not sure that I would argue about abandoning e-G8 – I think its quite useful if imbalanced, and is opening up some lines of communication with some excellent interventions and some good attendees.

I’d rather discuss how we could make IGF as relevant by attracting the same calibre of attendees. IGF government attendees are usually way down the picking line; the business reps are not quite CEOs of large players such as Paypal, Google and Facebook – and similarly our civil society reps are not quite Jimmy Wales, John Perry Barlow etc.

In other words, IGF has failed to attract high profile opinion leaders. If it continues as a second rate forum it will probably just fade away and no-one will notice. Which would be a pity – IGF is far more balanced, strives to achieve global and balanced inputs, and could be a really relevant and useful vehicle. 

>From our point of view, I am interested in how we can strengthen our inputs by involving and communicating with some of the higher profile civil society people who are not so involved with us at present. 

Ian Peter




From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Organization: Consumers International
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 14:32:00 +0800
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] :   e-G8 forum

   On 25/05/11 14:16, Roland Perry wrote: 

In message <B97535D24829433AB1D5ECAC3B6AA468 at userPC>, at 06:53:13 on Wed, 25 May 2011, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>  writes 
 
 

Who is the host for next year's meeting? 
 

 According to Wikipedia: 
 
 "Each calendar year, the responsibility of hosting the G8 rotates through the member states in the following order: France, United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada." 
 

 We could go further than we have, and argue that there should be no e-G8 next year, even if it were opened to broader participation, since it is duplicative and it distracts attention from other fora in which civil society's resources are already thinly enough spread.
 
 
-- 
 

Dr Jeremy Malcolm
 Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
 Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 Tel: +60 3 7726 1599


Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> 
Twitter @ConsumersInt <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int> 

Read our  email confidentiality notice <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print this email unless necessary.

 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To 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/20110529/ef332952/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  Mon May 30 03:10:04 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 04:10:04 -0300
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG remote participation
Message-ID: <BANLkTinXB+KF7Ca91=b-n4LrkZtym9+7og@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

EuroDIG 2011 has just started and remote participation will be available in
all sessions.
Just go to EuroDIG website and click on "live webcast".
The direct link is: http://www.eurodig.org/webcast

Hope to see you online during this next two days!


-- 
DiploFoundation
www.diplomacy.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110530/8822db49/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  Mon May 30 04:49:41 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 05:49:41 -0300
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG remote participation
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTin1U-duBq_Aq6CXFh5rNiEaRsK57g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTinXB+KF7Ca91=b-n4LrkZtym9+7og@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTin1U-duBq_Aq6CXFh5rNiEaRsK57g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinVTxVijqEb4BDL+hmR+jwsq664mQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Sala, you do not need to register. Just access
http://www.eurodig.org/webcast and choose the session you want to join.
There you will find all links you need.
Webcast will ask you only for a username and e-mail.

Let me know if you have any difficulties
Marilia


On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> How do I register remotely to participate or to access the discussions
> via webcast?
>
>
> Sala
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > EuroDIG 2011 has just started and remote participation will be available
> in
> > all sessions.
> > Just go to EuroDIG website and click on "live webcast".
> > The direct link is: http://www.eurodig.org/webcast
> > Hope to see you online during this next two days!
> >
> > --
> > DiploFoundation
> > www.diplomacy.edu
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sala
>
> "Stillness in the midst of the noise".
>



-- 
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/20110530/81839dc2/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  Mon May 30 04:39:59 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 20:39:59 +1200
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG remote participation
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinXB+KF7Ca91=b-n4LrkZtym9+7og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTinXB+KF7Ca91=b-n4LrkZtym9+7og@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTin1U-duBq_Aq6CXFh5rNiEaRsK57g@mail.gmail.com>

How do I register remotely to participate or to access the discussions
via webcast?


Sala

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
> EuroDIG 2011 has just started and remote participation will be available in
> all sessions.
> Just go to EuroDIG website and click on "live webcast".
> The direct link is: http://www.eurodig.org/webcast
> Hope to see you online during this next two days!
>
> --
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>



-- 
Sala

"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From cveraq at gmail.com  Mon May 30 04:07:46 2011
From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 08:07:46 +0000
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG remote participation
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinXB+KF7Ca91=b-n4LrkZtym9+7og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTinXB+KF7Ca91=b-n4LrkZtym9+7og@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1543394028-1306745607-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1060882867-@b5.c2.bise6.blackberry>

It say sorry your device is not supported.. And give a short list of supported devices and OS including mine :(

Carlos
-----Original Message-----
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 04:10:04 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; irp<Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG remote participation

Dear all,

EuroDIG 2011 has just started and remote participation will be available in
all sessions.
Just go to EuroDIG website and click on "live webcast".
The direct link is: http://www.eurodig.org/webcast

Hope to see you online during this next two days!


-- 
DiploFoundation
www.diplomacy.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110530/971c6101/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  Mon May 30 04:39:59 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 20:39:59 +1200
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG remote participation
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinXB+KF7Ca91=b-n4LrkZtym9+7og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTinXB+KF7Ca91=b-n4LrkZtym9+7og@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTin1U-duBq_Aq6CXFh5rNiEaRsK57g@mail.gmail.com>

How do I register remotely to participate or to access the discussions
via webcast?


Sala

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
> EuroDIG 2011 has just started and remote participation will be available in
> all sessions.
> Just go to EuroDIG website and click on "live webcast".
> The direct link is: http://www.eurodig.org/webcast
> Hope to see you online during this next two days!
>
> --
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>



-- 
Sala

"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Mon May 30 04:58:37 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 05:58:37 -0300
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG remote participation
In-Reply-To: <1543394028-1306745607-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1060882867-@b5.c2.bise6.blackberry>
References: <BANLkTinXB+KF7Ca91=b-n4LrkZtym9+7og@mail.gmail.com>
	<1543394028-1306745607-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1060882867-@b5.c2.bise6.blackberry>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=oGr1ZEfhwEDW_N-Mu6m08H7B=wg@mail.gmail.com>

Carlos,

Could you please talk to Bernard to troubleshoot?
His Skype is Bernard.Sadaka
He is waiting for you to contact him.

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq at gmail.com>wrote:

> It say sorry your device is not supported.. And give a short list of
> supported devices and OS including mine :(
>
> Carlos
> ------------------------------
> *From: * Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> *Sender: * governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Date: *Mon, 30 May 2011 04:10:04 -0300
> *To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>; irp<
> Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
> *ReplyTo: * governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel <
> mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> *Subject: *[governance] EuroDIG remote participation
>
> Dear all,
>
> EuroDIG 2011 has just started and remote participation will be available in
> all sessions.
> Just go to EuroDIG website and click on "live webcast".
> The direct link is: http://www.eurodig.org/webcast
>
> Hope to see you online during this next two days!
>
>
> --
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110530/e0ac8de5/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 cveraq at gmail.com  Mon May 30 04:19:38 2011
From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 08:19:38 +0000
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG remote participation
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=oGr1ZEfhwEDW_N-Mu6m08H7B=wg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTinXB+KF7Ca91=b-n4LrkZtym9+7og@mail.gmail.com><1543394028-1306745607-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1060882867-@b5.c2.bise6.blackberry><BANLkTi=oGr1ZEfhwEDW_N-Mu6m08H7B=wg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <727440722-1306746318-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1044508755-@b5.c2.bise6.blackberry>

Thank you Marilia, it's 4am here. I was trying to use my blackberry boll 9780 from bed :) to use Skye I have to wait some hours because it's not for blackberry.. 

Any way the error it gives me say:We’re sorry – your device is not supported.

Supported BlackBerry devices: OS 4.6 or higher on Bold 9700, Bold 9000,Storm 9550, Storm 9500, Curve 8900, and Tour 9630"

I think is a flash problem also.

I will follow not in real time later or please let Bernard contact me privately if some solution is available for blackberry

I appreciate your help!

Carlos

-----Original Message-----
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 05:58:37 
To: <cveraq at gmail.com>
Cc: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] EuroDIG remote participation

Carlos,

Could you please talk to Bernard to troubleshoot?
His Skype is Bernard.Sadaka
He is waiting for you to contact him.

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq at gmail.com>wrote:

> It say sorry your device is not supported.. And give a short list of
> supported devices and OS including mine :(
>
> Carlos
> ------------------------------
> *From: * Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> *Sender: * governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Date: *Mon, 30 May 2011 04:10:04 -0300
> *To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>; irp<
> Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
> *ReplyTo: * governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel <
> mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> *Subject: *[governance] EuroDIG remote participation
>
> Dear all,
>
> EuroDIG 2011 has just started and remote participation will be available in
> all sessions.
> Just go to EuroDIG website and click on "live webcast".
> The direct link is: http://www.eurodig.org/webcast
>
> Hope to see you online during this next two days!
>
>
> --
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110530/a00f2c11/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 May 30 08:39:07 2011
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 07:39:07 -0500
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG remote participation
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTin1U-duBq_Aq6CXFh5rNiEaRsK57g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTinXB+KF7Ca91=b-n4LrkZtym9+7og@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTin1U-duBq_Aq6CXFh5rNiEaRsK57g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DE38FEB.3020300@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110530/da864396/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  Mon May 30 11:31:58 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 17:31:58 +0200
Subject: [governance] Draft resolution WSIS follow-up
Message-ID: <4DE3B86E.3040103@apc.org>

>From the CSTD.

Anriette
--------


Dear all,


Please find attached, the final draft resolution on *Assessment of the
progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of
the World Summit on the Information Society* as adopted by the CSTD
plenary on 27 May 2011.




Best regards,

Franziska Klopfer

Franziska KLOPFER
Science, Technology and ICTs Branch
Division on Technology and Logistics
UNCTAD
Palais des Nations
1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland
Tel: 41-22-917-5528
Email: franziska.klopfer at unctad.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: draft_resolution WSIS follow-up_FINAL.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 69632 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110530/7d6d6f6f/attachment.obj>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Mon May 30 11:48:26 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 12:48:26 -0300
Subject: [governance] Draft resolution WSIS follow-up
In-Reply-To: <4DE3B86E.3040103@apc.org>
References: <4DE3B86E.3040103@apc.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimD8AmdB6viK587psSYCtGpJqeSKw@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you very much Anriette! Theresa and I were discussing about how to
access it today.

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

> From the CSTD.
>
> Anriette
> --------
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
> Please find attached, the final draft resolution on *Assessment of the
> progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of
> the World Summit on the Information Society* as adopted by the CSTD
> plenary on 27 May 2011.
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Franziska Klopfer
>
> Franziska KLOPFER
> Science, Technology and ICTs Branch
> Division on Technology and Logistics
> UNCTAD
> Palais des Nations
> 1211 Geneva 10
> Switzerland
> Tel: 41-22-917-5528
> Email: franziska.klopfer at unctad.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110530/1c56ef9e/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 meraszendro at gmail.com  Mon May 30 13:54:18 2011
From: meraszendro at gmail.com (Mera Szendro Bok)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 10:54:18 -0700
Subject: [governance] : e-G8 forum
In-Reply-To: <309278.24388.qm@web112318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <CA02EB3C.19228%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <309278.24388.qm@web112318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikrrLVXgxXHnUu+8M11ZFmiapgwug@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for sharing the article, Amali. I agree- organized input is really
important so we can build this civil society for internet right movement.
I'm really looking forward to doing more outreach and getting various new
groups involved. I'm so glad the e-G8 statement was such a success!

Mera
---

Mera Szendro Bok: Communications Strategist on Media Reform and
Communication Rights
Founder and Director of Communication Is Your Right!
www.communicationisyourright.org

My personal blog:
http://communicationisahumanright.wordpress.com/

Find me on Twitter @MeraSB <http://twitter.com/MeraSB> and
@commisyourright<http://twitter.com/CommIsYourRight>

Linked In : http://www.linkedin.com/in/meraszendro

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Amali De Silva <amalidesilva at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Civil society plees for representation have been heard NYT article - needs
> an organized input for future meetings - to echo others on this list ..
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/technology/30tech.html?pagewanted=1&ref=technology
>
> Amali De Silva - Mitchell ( personal note )
> Vancouver Canada
>     Private & Confidential
> **
>
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 5/25/11, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [governance] : e-G8 forum
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Received: Wednesday, May 25, 2011, 2:22 AM
>
>
> Not sure that I would argue about abandoning e-G8 – I think its quite
> useful if imbalanced, and is opening up some lines of communication with
> some excellent interventions and some good attendees.
>
> I’d rather discuss how we could make IGF as relevant by attracting the same
> calibre of attendees. IGF government attendees are usually way down the
> picking line; the business reps are not quite CEOs of large players such as
> Paypal, Google and Facebook – and similarly our civil society reps are not
> quite Jimmy Wales, John Perry Barlow etc.
>
> In other words, IGF has failed to attract high profile opinion leaders. If
> it continues as a second rate forum it will probably just fade away and
> no-one will notice. Which would be a pity – IGF is far more balanced,
> strives to achieve global and balanced inputs, and could be a really
> relevant and useful vehicle.
>
> From our point of view, I am interested in how we can strengthen our inputs
> by involving and communicating with some of the higher profile civil society
> people who are not so involved with us at present.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> *Organization: *Consumers International
> *Reply-To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org
> >
> *Date: *Wed, 25 May 2011 14:32:00 +0800
> *To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Roland Perry <
> roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
>
>    On 25/05/11 14:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> In message <B97535D24829433AB1D5ECAC3B6AA468 at userPC>, at 06:53:13 on Wed,
> 25 May 2011, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> <
> mailto:gurstein at gmail.com<http://ca.mc1123.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gurstein at gmail.com>>
>  writes
>
>
>
> Who is the host for next year's meeting?
>
>
>
>  According to Wikipedia:
>
>  "Each calendar year, the responsibility of hosting the G8 rotates through
> the member states in the following order: France, United States, United
> Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada."
>
>
>
>  We could go further than we have, and argue that there should be no e-G8
> next year, even if it were opened to broader participation, since it is
> duplicative and it distracts attention from other fora in which civil
> society's resources are already thinly enough spread.
>
>
> --
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>  Project Coordinator
> *Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>  Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
>  Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
>
> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups
> that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and
> authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations
> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help
> protect and empower consumers everywhere.
> *www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org/>
> **Twitter @ConsumersInt <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int>
> *
> Read our  email confidentiality notice <
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
> this email unless necessary.
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://ca.mc1123.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>


-- 

Mera Szendro Bok: Communications Strategist on Media Reform and
Communication Rights
Founder and Director of Communication Is Your Right!
www.communicationisyourright.org

My personal blog:
http://communicationisahumanright.wordpress.com/

Find me on Twitter @MeraSB <http://twitter.com/MeraSB> and
@commisyourright<http://twitter.com/CommIsYourRight>

Linked In : http://www.linkedin.com/in/meraszendro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110530/e3616cd8/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  Mon May 30 17:01:56 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 23:01:56 +0200
Subject: [governance] News from the HRC in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimD8AmdB6viK587psSYCtGpJqeSKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DE3B86E.3040103@apc.org> <BANLkTimD8AmdB6viK587psSYCtGpJqeSKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DE405C4.1000101@apc.org>

I hope all is going well at EuroDig for those of you that are there.
Here in Geneva at the Human Rights Council we (APC) tried to put
internet FX on the agenda today in the opening general debate. Amidst so
many other issues... Libya, Sri Lanka, Cote d'Ivoire, Syria, Bahrain,
migrants the internet seems in a weird way both 'peripheral' and
terribly central at the same time.

Frank la Rue will be presenting his report on Friday. Until then a group
of civil society organisations and governments who care about human
rights on the internet are considering best options for moving the issue
forward in a positive way.

Follow on www.apc.org and on Twitter using #fxinternet #UNHRC #UN_HRC
#humanrights.

Anriette
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From anriette at apc.org  Mon May 30 17:06:23 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 23:06:23 +0200
Subject: [governance] Draft resolution WSIS follow-up
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimD8AmdB6viK587psSYCtGpJqeSKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DE3B86E.3040103@apc.org> <BANLkTimD8AmdB6viK587psSYCtGpJqeSKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DE406CF.1000501@apc.org>

So... what do you all think of this resolution ?

Here is the text on Enhanced Cooperation and the IGF:
Enhanced cooperation

22. Recalls its resolution 2010/2 of 19 July 2010 which invited the UN
Secretary General to convene open and inclusive consultations involving
all Member States and all other stakeholders with a view to assisting
the process towards enhanced cooperation, in order to enable governments
on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in
respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the
Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters,
that do not impact on those issues, through a balanced participation of
all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities, as
stated in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda;

23. Takes note with appreciation of the open and inclusive consultations
convened by the Secretary General through the United Nations Department
of Economic and Social Affairs from September to December 2010,
including the meeting held in New York on 14 December 2010;

24. Decides to forward the Report of the UN Secretary General on the
outcome of these consultations to the General Assembly for consideration
at its 66th session in order to enable Governments on an equal footing
to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of
international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not in
respect of the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not
impact upon those issues;

Internet Governance Forum

25. Recalls General Assembly resolution 65/141 of 20 December 2010 on
information and communications technologies for development which
extends the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum for a further five
years while recognizing the need for improvements;

26. Takes note with appreciation of the report on the outcomes of the
Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum and
expresses its gratitude to all its members for their time and valuable
efforts in this endeavour as well as to all member states and other
relevant stakeholders that have submitted inputs to the Working Group
consultation process;

27. Takes note that the wealth of information and the complexity and
political sensitivity of the subject as well as a divergence of views
among members of the Working Group on a number of concrete proposals did
not, within the short time frame that it had, allow the Working Group to
finalize a set of recommendations as appropriate on improving the
Internet Governance Forum;

28. Agrees to extend the mandate of the Working Group on improvements to
the Internet Governance Forum until the 15th session of the Commission
on Science and Technology for Development and invites it to complete its
task on the basis of the work already done;

29. Urges that the Working Group be re-convened at the earliest possible
time to enable timely submission of its recommendations to the 15th
session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development,
which shall constitute an input from the Commission to the UN General
Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council;

[snip]


38. Urges the Secretary-General to ensure the continued functioning of
the IGF and its structures in preparation for the fifth meeting of the
Internet Governance Forum, to be held from 27 to 30 September in
Nairobi, Kenya and future meetings of the Internet Governance Forum,
without prejudice to the improvements that may be proposed by the
Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum;




On 30/05/11 17:48, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Thank you very much Anriette! Theresa and I were discussing about how to
> access it today.
> 
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org
> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
> 
>     From the CSTD.
> 
>     Anriette
>     --------
> 
> 
>     Dear all,
> 
> 
>     Please find attached, the final draft resolution on *Assessment of the
>     progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of
>     the World Summit on the Information Society* as adopted by the CSTD
>     plenary on 27 May 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     Best regards,
> 
>     Franziska Klopfer
> 
>     Franziska KLOPFER
>     Science, Technology and ICTs Branch
>     Division on Technology and Logistics
>     UNCTAD
>     Palais des Nations
>     1211 Geneva 10
>     Switzerland
>     Tel: 41-22-917-5528
>     Email: franziska.klopfer at unctad.org
>     <mailto:franziska.klopfer at unctad.org>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
> 
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From anriette at apc.org  Mon May 30 17:56:25 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 23:56:25 +0200
Subject: [governance] Draft resolution WSIS follow-up
Message-ID: <4DE41289.6050204@apc.org>

So... what do you all think of this resolution ?

Here is the text on Enhanced Cooperation and the IGF:
Enhanced cooperation

22. Recalls its resolution 2010/2 of 19 July 2010 which invited the UN
Secretary General to convene open and inclusive consultations involving
all Member States and all other stakeholders with a view to assisting
the process towards enhanced cooperation, in order to enable governments
on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in
respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the
Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters,
that do not impact on those issues, through a balanced participation of
all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities, as
stated in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda;

23. Takes note with appreciation of the open and inclusive consultations
convened by the Secretary General through the United Nations Department
of Economic and Social Affairs from September to December 2010,
including the meeting held in New York on 14 December 2010;

24. Decides to forward the Report of the UN Secretary General on the
outcome of these consultations to the General Assembly for consideration
at its 66th session in order to enable Governments on an equal footing
to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of
international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not in
respect of the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not
impact upon those issues;

Internet Governance Forum

25. Recalls General Assembly resolution 65/141 of 20 December 2010 on
information and communications technologies for development which
extends the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum for a further five
years while recognizing the need for improvements;

26. Takes note with appreciation of the report on the outcomes of the
Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum and
expresses its gratitude to all its members for their time and valuable
efforts in this endeavour as well as to all member states and other
relevant stakeholders that have submitted inputs to the Working Group
consultation process;

27. Takes note that the wealth of information and the complexity and
political sensitivity of the subject as well as a divergence of views
among members of the Working Group on a number of concrete proposals did
not, within the short time frame that it had, allow the Working Group to
finalize a set of recommendations as appropriate on improving the
Internet Governance Forum;

28. Agrees to extend the mandate of the Working Group on improvements to
the Internet Governance Forum until the 15th session of the Commission
on Science and Technology for Development and invites it to complete its
task on the basis of the work already done;

29. Urges that the Working Group be re-convened at the earliest possible
time to enable timely submission of its recommendations to the 15th
session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development,
which shall constitute an input from the Commission to the UN General
Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council;

[snip]


38. Urges the Secretary-General to ensure the continued functioning of
the IGF and its structures in preparation for the fifth meeting of the
Internet Governance Forum, to be held from 27 to 30 September in
Nairobi, Kenya and future meetings of the Internet Governance Forum,
without prejudice to the improvements that may be proposed by the
Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum;




On 30/05/11 17:48, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Thank you very much Anriette! Theresa and I were discussing about how to
> access it today.
> 
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org
> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
> 
>     From the CSTD.
> 
>     Anriette
>     --------
> 
> 
>     Dear all,
> 
> 
>     Please find attached, the final draft resolution on *Assessment of the
>     progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of
>     the World Summit on the Information Society* as adopted by the CSTD
>     plenary on 27 May 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     Best regards,
> 
>     Franziska Klopfer
> 
>     Franziska KLOPFER
>     Science, Technology and ICTs Branch
>     Division on Technology and Logistics
>     UNCTAD
>     Palais des Nations
>     1211 Geneva 10
>     Switzerland
>     Tel: 41-22-917-5528
>     Email: franziska.klopfer at unctad.org
>     <mailto:franziska.klopfer at unctad.org>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
> 
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Mon May 30 18:08:13 2011
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 16:08:13 -0600
Subject: [governance] Draft resolution WSIS follow-up
In-Reply-To: <4DE406CF.1000501@apc.org>
References: <4DE3B86E.3040103@apc.org>
	<BANLkTimD8AmdB6viK587psSYCtGpJqeSKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DE406CF.1000501@apc.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimATF1mSbj_g0WN5CdY6cE_kkpVuQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

My reading is:

- EC is left to Governments and to the GA. It will be difficult to have
concrete steps out of the discussion in the GA. It may, maybe, go back to
the CSTD (I don't see where else this can be discussed in the Governments
circuit) or it may rest in peace.

- This EC only refers to Governments as the Tunis Agenda dealt with it.

- EC and IGF are being delinked, if any possible link existed at all.

- IGF improvements will take, if successful, more probably until 2013 to
take effect. It will be very stressing to materialize improvements for 2012.
However, the conitnuity in a status quo manner is granted.

Best,

Miguel

Disclaimer
My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my
employer or any other institution


On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

> So... what do you all think of this resolution ?
>
> Here is the text on Enhanced Cooperation and the IGF:
> Enhanced cooperation
>
> 22. Recalls its resolution 2010/2 of 19 July 2010 which invited the UN
> Secretary General to convene open and inclusive consultations involving
> all Member States and all other stakeholders with a view to assisting
> the process towards enhanced cooperation, in order to enable governments
> on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in
> respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the
> Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters,
> that do not impact on those issues, through a balanced participation of
> all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities, as
> stated in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda;
>
> 23. Takes note with appreciation of the open and inclusive consultations
> convened by the Secretary General through the United Nations Department
> of Economic and Social Affairs from September to December 2010,
> including the meeting held in New York on 14 December 2010;
>
> 24. Decides to forward the Report of the UN Secretary General on the
> outcome of these consultations to the General Assembly for consideration
> at its 66th session in order to enable Governments on an equal footing
> to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of
> international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not in
> respect of the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not
> impact upon those issues;
>
> Internet Governance Forum
>
> 25. Recalls General Assembly resolution 65/141 of 20 December 2010 on
> information and communications technologies for development which
> extends the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum for a further five
> years while recognizing the need for improvements;
>
> 26. Takes note with appreciation of the report on the outcomes of the
> Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum and
> expresses its gratitude to all its members for their time and valuable
> efforts in this endeavour as well as to all member states and other
> relevant stakeholders that have submitted inputs to the Working Group
> consultation process;
>
> 27. Takes note that the wealth of information and the complexity and
> political sensitivity of the subject as well as a divergence of views
> among members of the Working Group on a number of concrete proposals did
> not, within the short time frame that it had, allow the Working Group to
> finalize a set of recommendations as appropriate on improving the
> Internet Governance Forum;
>
> 28. Agrees to extend the mandate of the Working Group on improvements to
> the Internet Governance Forum until the 15th session of the Commission
> on Science and Technology for Development and invites it to complete its
> task on the basis of the work already done;
>
> 29. Urges that the Working Group be re-convened at the earliest possible
> time to enable timely submission of its recommendations to the 15th
> session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development,
> which shall constitute an input from the Commission to the UN General
> Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council;
>
> [snip]
>
>
> 38. Urges the Secretary-General to ensure the continued functioning of
> the IGF and its structures in preparation for the fifth meeting of the
> Internet Governance Forum, to be held from 27 to 30 September in
> Nairobi, Kenya and future meetings of the Internet Governance Forum,
> without prejudice to the improvements that may be proposed by the
> Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum;
>
>
>
>
> On 30/05/11 17:48, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> > Thank you very much Anriette! Theresa and I were discussing about how to
> > access it today.
> >
> > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org
> > <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     From the CSTD.
> >
> >     Anriette
> >     --------
> >
> >
> >     Dear all,
> >
> >
> >     Please find attached, the final draft resolution on *Assessment of
> the
> >     progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes
> of
> >     the World Summit on the Information Society* as adopted by the CSTD
> >     plenary on 27 May 2011.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     Best regards,
> >
> >     Franziska Klopfer
> >
> >     Franziska KLOPFER
> >     Science, Technology and ICTs Branch
> >     Division on Technology and Logistics
> >     UNCTAD
> >     Palais des Nations
> >     1211 Geneva 10
> >     Switzerland
> >     Tel: 41-22-917-5528
> >     Email: franziska.klopfer at unctad.org
> >     <mailto:franziska.klopfer at unctad.org>
> >     ____________________________________________________________
> >     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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> > FGV Direito Rio
> >
> > Center for Technology and Society
> > Getulio Vargas Foundation
> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110530/4ae91cb3/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 acm.org  Mon May 30 18:18:44 2011
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 18:18:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] Draft resolution WSIS follow-up
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimATF1mSbj_g0WN5CdY6cE_kkpVuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DE3B86E.3040103@apc.org> <BANLkTimD8AmdB6viK587psSYCtGpJqeSKw@mail.gmail.com> <4DE406CF.1000501@apc.org> <BANLkTimATF1mSbj_g0WN5CdY6cE_kkpVuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <61C0DEB6-A16C-42B4-9AC1-78B853993B89@acm.org>


On 30 May 2011, at 18:08, Miguel Alcaine wrote:

> - IGF improvements will take, if successful, more probably until 2013 to take effect. It will be very stressing to materialize improvements for 2012. However, the conitnuity in a status quo manner is granted.

which means that any 'improvements' might be going into effect right around the time the clock starts for the next 5 year review.

a.____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon May 30 20:20:52 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 20:20:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] Draft resolution WSIS follow-up
In-Reply-To: <61C0DEB6-A16C-42B4-9AC1-78B853993B89@acm.org>
References: <4DE3B86E.3040103@apc.org>
 <BANLkTimD8AmdB6viK587psSYCtGpJqeSKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4DE406CF.1000501@apc.org>
 <BANLkTimATF1mSbj_g0WN5CdY6cE_kkpVuQ@mail.gmail.com>,<61C0DEB6-A16C-42B4-9AC1-78B853993B89@acm.org>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035A3AD5A8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Yeah Avri, but that review should be more routinized than this first one.

I agree with Miguel generally; although there are alternate ways to interpret the phrasing in the section headlined ' Enhance Cooperation':

'to enable governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in
respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the
Internet... through a balanced participation of
all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities'

My read is that this is, indeed, presented as a distinct and possibly orthogonal issue to the next section on the IGF, and its eventual improvement.  

But to conclude that the now delayed eventual improvements in IGF might not help 'enable governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in
respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet... through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities' - is premature and under-ambitious for the IGF imho.  

Lee
 



 
________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org]
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 6:18 PM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] Draft resolution WSIS follow-up

On 30 May 2011, at 18:08, Miguel Alcaine wrote:

> - IGF improvements will take, if successful, more probably until 2013 to take effect. It will be very stressing to materialize improvements for 2012. However, the conitnuity in a status quo manner is granted.

which means that any 'improvements' might be going into effect right around the time the clock starts for the next 5 year review.

a.____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue May 31 03:01:25 2011
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 17:01:25 +1000
Subject: [governance] Organising for multiple forums
In-Reply-To: <309278.24388.qm@web112318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CA0ACF65.19571%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Folks,

I¹m starting a new thread here, following from the many comments that have
been brought up here following particularly from e-G8 that we need to
organise to be able to represent civil society in more than one forum in
future as regards internet governance issues.

Wheras previously our main emphasis in Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has
been on IGF, we now need adapt to the fact the IGF is no longer the only
forum ­ or perhaps even the main one ­ where internet governance issues (in
a wider understanding of the term, not a narrow ICANN/NRO one) are being
discussed.

In future there will be e-G8, eG20, IGF, and perhaps other UN affiliated or
more subject specific forums where there is a need for civil society
perspectives on internet governance to be presented and co-ordinated.

To me IGC, because of its wide representation and openness to differing
perspectives, is the obvious body to take on this wider and much larger
task. However, it is not capable at present of stretching that far for a
number of reasons.

So I do think we need to put some effort into changing our organisation to
give it the capability to represent civil society on internet governance
matters in multiple forums and through multiple voices.

I do not believe that we could undertake this necessary task without at
least a part time employee and some minimal travel for funding. In order to
receive such funding, we may also need to have a more formal structure or at
least an affiliation with a more formally constructed body able to provide
the administrative functions on our behalf.

I believe we will need to commence to act soon in this direction if we are
to fulfil our mandate in the broader internet governance arena. So I am
opening up this topic to get a general feeling as to how we might proceed
and whether people have specific suggestions. We may need some sort of task
force to work on this.

Just opening this up for general discussion. To me the priorities are

* a structure able to receive funding
* a funding source for at least part time secretarial functions and some
travel 
* a realisation that the game is changing and we have to change too

That¹s my initial thoughts.

Ian Peter



From: Amali De Silva <amalidesilva at yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 19:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, Jeremy
Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] :   e-G8 forum

Civil society plees for representation have been heard NYT article - needs
an organized input for future meetings - to echo others on this list ..
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/technology/30tech.html?pagewanted=1&ref=te
chnology

Amali De Silva - Mitchell ( personal note )
Vancouver Canada 
Private & Confidential
 
 


--- On Wed, 5/25/11, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
> From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] : e-G8 forum
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Received: Wednesday, May 25, 2011, 2:22 AM
> 
> Not sure that I would argue about abandoning e-G8 ­ I think its quite useful
> if imbalanced, and is opening up some lines of communication with some
> excellent interventions and some good attendees.
> 
> I¹d rather discuss how we could make IGF as relevant by attracting the same
> calibre of attendees. IGF government attendees are usually way down the
> picking line; the business reps are not quite CEOs of large players such as
> Paypal, Google and Facebook ­ and similarly our civil society reps are not
> quite Jimmy Wales, John Perry Barlow etc.
> 
> In other words, IGF has failed to attract high profile opinion leaders. If it
> continues as a second rate forum it will probably just fade away and no-one
> will notice. Which would be a pity ­ IGF is far more balanced, strives to
> achieve global and balanced inputs, and could be a really relevant and useful
> vehicle. 
> 
> From our point of view, I am interested in how we can strengthen our inputs by
> involving and communicating with some of the higher profile civil society
> people who are not so involved with us at present.
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> 
> 
> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Organization: Consumers International
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 14:32:00 +0800
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Roland Perry
> <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
> 
>    On 25/05/11 14:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <B97535D24829433AB1D5ECAC3B6AA468 at userPC>, at 06:53:13 on Wed, 25
>> May 2011, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com
>> <http://ca.mc1123.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gurstein at gmail.com> >  writes
>>  
>>  
>>> Who is the host for next year's meeting?
>>>  
>> 
>>  According to Wikipedia:
>>  
>>  "Each calendar year, the responsibility of hosting the G8 rotates through
>> the member states in the following order: France, United States, United
>> Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada."
>>  
> 
>  We could go further than we have, and argue that there should be no e-G8 next
> year, even if it were opened to broader participation, since it is duplicative
> and it distracts attention from other fora in which civil society's resources
> are already thinly enough spread.
>  
>  
> -- 
>  
> 
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>  Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>  Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
>  Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> 
> 
> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that,
> working together with its members, serves as the only independent and
> authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations
> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help
> protect and empower consumers everywhere.
> www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org/>
> Twitter @ConsumersInt <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int>
> 
> Read our  email confidentiality notice
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
> this email unless necessary.
> 
>  
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> <http://ca.mc1123.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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/20110531/d3725792/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  Tue May 31 03:29:59 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 08:29:59 +0100
Subject: [governance] Draft resolution WSIS follow-up
In-Reply-To: <61C0DEB6-A16C-42B4-9AC1-78B853993B89@acm.org>
References: <4DE3B86E.3040103@apc.org>
 <BANLkTimD8AmdB6viK587psSYCtGpJqeSKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4DE406CF.1000501@apc.org>
 <BANLkTimATF1mSbj_g0WN5CdY6cE_kkpVuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <61C0DEB6-A16C-42B4-9AC1-78B853993B89@acm.org>
Message-ID: <V1$s$iU3jJ5NFAGb@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <61C0DEB6-A16C-42B4-9AC1-78B853993B89 at acm.org>, at 18:18:44 
on Mon, 30 May 2011, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> writes
>> - IGF improvements will take, if successful, more probably until 2013 
>>to take effect. It will be very stressing to materialize improvements 
>>for 2012. However, the conitnuity in a status quo manner is granted.
>
>which means that any 'improvements' might be going into effect right 
>around the time the clock starts for the next 5 year review.

Ongoing improvements to the logistics and meeting plan can be made as 
the IGF continues to evolve and we all learn what "works and doesn't 
work" from previous years.

Structural changes will need to wait for 'official' backing, and it's a 
race because each meeting has started its planning by December. The 2012 
meeting will (assuming no major surprises at ECOSOC and UN-GA this year) 
will have to be run under the current framework.

Whoever steps up to organise the 2013 meeting will need to take account 
of resolutions passed in the second half of 2012 to guide/'improve' the 
format of the 2013 meeting.

But you are right, the 2014 meeting is where we'd expect the 
second-round of 5yr review to begin.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 May 31 03:42:14 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 04:42:14 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: EuroDIG remote participation
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinXB+KF7Ca91=b-n4LrkZtym9+7og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTinXB+KF7Ca91=b-n4LrkZtym9+7og@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTin_xA42sUBChZDJFsAmerJ230DQPg@mail.gmail.com>

The second day of EuroDIG has just started.
For remote participation: http://www.eurodig.org/webcast

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> EuroDIG 2011 has just started and remote participation will be available in
> all sessions.
> Just go to EuroDIG website and click on "live webcast".
> The direct link is: http://www.eurodig.org/webcast
>
> Hope to see you online during this next two days!
>
>
> --
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110531/052c65a6/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  Tue May 31 04:43:38 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:43:38 +0800
Subject: [governance] Organising for multiple forums
In-Reply-To: <CA0ACF65.19571%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <CA0ACF65.19571%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4DE4AA3A.1030107@ciroap.org>

On 31/05/11 15:01, Ian Peter wrote:
> So I do think we need to put some effort into changing our
> organisation to give it the capability to represent civil society on
> internet governance matters in multiple forums and through multiple
> voices.
>
> I do not believe that we could undertake this necessary task without
> at least a part time employee and some minimal travel for funding. In
> order to receive such funding, we may also need to have a more formal
> structure or at least an affiliation with a more formally constructed
> body able to provide the administrative functions on our behalf.

This has been raised before (including by me [0]), and there has always
been a reluctance to change.  This doesn't mean that I think there is no
point in discussing it again; on the contrary.  I only haven't been
pushing the discussion so far because I am "on the way out" as IGC
coordinator, and I think the heavy lifting will have to be done by Izumi
and the next coordinator.

But if the IGC does decide to proceed along these lines, I may be able
to help right away.  I put in a funding application on behalf of
Consumers International to Ford Foundation, which was successful, for a
project titled "Consumer Representation in the Information Society". 
I'm attaching the relevant pages of the proposal.  It is possible that
some of the funding could go towards contracting the next co-coordinator
of the IGC on a very part-time basis.

But if I have learned anything about the IGC, it's that you can't assume
that changes of any sort will go down well with everyone, so I'm going
to sit back at this point and see what the reaction is.

[0] http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-12/msg00124.html

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator*
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups
that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent
and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member
organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
_www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org/>_
_Twitter @ConsumersInt <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int>_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110531/047eec10/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ford-reprn-extract.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 98479 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110531/047eec10/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110531/047eec10/attachment.bin>

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Tue May 31 06:41:32 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 12:41:32 +0200
Subject: [governance] Organising for multiple forums
In-Reply-To: <CA0ACF65.19571%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <309278.24388.qm@web112318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<CA0ACF65.19571%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=xMq8FE-HvMxLAXPExijeD2p-7Tg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ian,

Thanks for touching on an important subject that as Jeremy shared was
also raised in the past but fizzled out as discussion died down but
there is opportunity here as once Ginger discussed on the list during
her coordinator tenure.

The fundamental aspect here that you have touched is institutional
form and what Jeremy shares is the foundational structure that can
gain the confidence of donors and at the end of the day financially
sustain the existence of such an institutional capacity.

I think the inherent fears of an institutional form (non-for-profit
organization) is the development of politics, lobbies and
bureaucracies. Then the housing of such an institution, the choice of
country, obviously will have to be somewhere around where all the
action is and might receive the consensus of being in Geneva if the
consensus did happen.

This remains a touchy area I guess for the many of us in the
developing world that how this structure would be governed and which
members may gain control over such an institutional structure and
might end up with a lobby supporting only a handful of views from a
certain group.

Due to the open nature of IGC's current list form where members are
from any stakeholder group, it also raises concern over the kind of
consensus that may result tending to bend over to certain sides, yes
these are just assumptions but they do remain a major concern.

I would at this stage suggest to first conduct a small research
activity and see if the whole idea of institutionalization even gets
off the ground with consensus. Lets say move forward with what we have
suggested in the past to have working groups, focal points, issue
experts etc.

There are two approaches here. First the the focal point approach,
why? Possibly because we can't have the whole IGC switching to every
issue that comes its way and we need a certain form of expert working
group of volunteers that can tackle a given issue from a particular
internet public policy arrangement or institution.

Say the focal point is either one or two members that lead a
specialized working group on a particular subject. For example, the
IGC Human Rights Focal Point may lead forward from IGC the IRP Dynamic
Coalition Output to other forums and thus bridge both sustainability
to the output as well as position IGC in the debates.

Let me share an example from Katitza and the OECD Civil Society
interventions the CSISAC. Now more or less we need members of OECD
countries to follow and intervene OECD activities. Similarly, the same
would be to coordinate the creation of working groups on each topic.
CSTD has APC and IT For Change participation. Similarly we have some
on the WIPO Development Agenda, then we have the CSTD Working Group on
Improvements and therefore can also have working groups for e-G8,
eG20, IGF, and perhaps other UN affiliated activities that link to or
impact the Internet Governance space.

Now there were some recent IGC internal working groups established
around strategy etc.....these working group leaders can be declared
focal points from their groups and produce and forward to IGC periodic
summaries or reports to the IGC Coordinators for presentation to IGC
for consensus. Creation of new Focused Working Groups, streamlining
existing working groups and initiatives etc will help to create a
picture whether we can exist as an Organization with legal
incorporation, structure, offices etc.

Its hard to do so but it is not impossible to achieve. It can't be
done without showing output and displaying that developing countries
did have an equal footing in the overall process and did witness their
perspectives reaching these forums etc. So it has to be an exercise
first over a period of a year to determine whether this is a workable
approach or not.



-- 
Regards.

Fouad


On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I’m starting a new thread here, following from the many comments that have
> been brought up here following particularly from e-G8 that we need to
> organise to be able to represent civil society in more than one forum in
> future as regards internet governance issues.
>
> Wheras previously our main emphasis in Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has
> been on IGF, we now need adapt to the fact the IGF is no longer the only
> forum – or perhaps even the main one – where internet governance issues (in
> a wider understanding of the term, not a narrow ICANN/NRO one) are being
> discussed.
>
> In future there will be e-G8, eG20, IGF, and perhaps other UN affiliated or
> more subject specific forums where there is a need for civil society
> perspectives on internet governance to be presented and co-ordinated.
>
> To me IGC, because of its wide representation and openness to differing
> perspectives, is the obvious body to take on this wider and much larger
> task. However, it is not capable at present of stretching that far for a
> number of reasons.
>
> So I do think we need to put some effort into changing our organisation to
> give it the capability to represent civil society on internet governance
> matters in multiple forums and through multiple voices.
>
> I do not believe that we could undertake this necessary task without at
> least a part time employee and some minimal travel for funding. In order to
> receive such funding, we may also need to have a more formal structure or at
> least an affiliation with a more formally constructed body able to provide
> the administrative functions on our behalf.
>
> I believe we will need to commence to act soon in this direction if we are
> to fulfil our mandate in the broader internet governance arena. So I am
> opening up this topic to get a general feeling as to how we might proceed
> and whether people have specific suggestions. We may need some sort of task
> force to work on this.
>
> Just opening this up for general discussion. To me the priorities are
>
> a structure able to receive funding
> a funding source for at least part time secretarial functions and some
> travel
> a realisation that the game is changing and we have to change too
>
> That’s my initial thoughts.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Amali De Silva <amalidesilva at yahoo.com>
> Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 19:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, Jeremy
> Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
>
> Civil society plees for representation have been heard NYT article - needs
> an organized input for future meetings - to echo others on this list ..
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/technology/30tech.html?pagewanted=1&ref=technology
>
> Amali De Silva - Mitchell ( personal note )
> Vancouver Canada
> Private & Confidential
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 5/25/11, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] : e-G8 forum
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Received: Wednesday, May 25, 2011, 2:22 AM
>
> Not sure that I would argue about abandoning e-G8 – I think its quite useful
> if imbalanced, and is opening up some lines of communication with some
> excellent interventions and some good attendees.
>
> I’d rather discuss how we could make IGF as relevant by attracting the same
> calibre of attendees. IGF government attendees are usually way down the
> picking line; the business reps are not quite CEOs of large players such as
> Paypal, Google and Facebook – and similarly our civil society reps are not
> quite Jimmy Wales, John Perry Barlow etc.
>
> In other words, IGF has failed to attract high profile opinion leaders. If
> it continues as a second rate forum it will probably just fade away and
> no-one will notice. Which would be a pity – IGF is far more balanced,
> strives to achieve global and balanced inputs, and could be a really
> relevant and useful vehicle.
>
> From our point of view, I am interested in how we can strengthen our inputs
> by involving and communicating with some of the higher profile civil society
> people who are not so involved with us at present.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Organization: Consumers International
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 14:32:00 +0800
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Roland Perry
> <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] :   e-G8 forum
>
>    On 25/05/11 14:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> In message <B97535D24829433AB1D5ECAC3B6AA468 at userPC>, at 06:53:13 on Wed, 25
> May 2011, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com
> <http://ca.mc1123.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gurstein at gmail.com> >  writes
>
>
>
> Who is the host for next year's meeting?
>
>
>  According to Wikipedia:
>
>  "Each calendar year, the responsibility of hosting the G8 rotates through
> the member states in the following order: France, United States, United
> Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada."
>
>
>  We could go further than we have, and argue that there should be no e-G8
> next year, even if it were opened to broader participation, since it is
> duplicative and it distracts attention from other fora in which civil
> society's resources are already thinly enough spread.
>
>
> --
>
>
> 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
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mueller at syr.edu  Tue May 31 11:05:25 2011
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 11:05:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] G8 Deauville Declaration
In-Reply-To: <726588291.1861211.1306653677546.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb065>
References: <726588291.1861211.1306653677546.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb065>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7173CBAC9D4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Michael, interesting comments, thanks. What you overlook is that Germany's ENTRY into nuclear industry would not have been possible without strong public authority, either. 

> -----Original Message-----
> P.S.: I'm well aware of the fact that people on this list have different views
> regarding the public policy authority of governments, and that's good. In my
> opinion, something like Germany's now surprisingly quick exit from nuclear
> energy would not be possible in a „nuclear industry led bottom-up multi-
> stakeholder forum“. What we learned since the early years of the industrial
> revolution is that it's sometimes helpful to have strong political power to
> balance economic power.
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue May 31 12:15:05 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 12:15:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] Organising for multiple forums
In-Reply-To: <4DE4AA3A.1030107@ciroap.org>
References: <CA0ACF65.19571%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>,<4DE4AA3A.1030107@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035A3AD5AF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Hi,

First I have been among those urging caution and realism on what is possible with a loose list/caucus.  It's too easy to kill the spirit of the thing. Formalizing it into something that needs constant care and fundraising, when it lives among others with similar needs, is tricky.

Still, coming up with more support and mechanisms for more coordinated voluntary support of IGC, possibly including a new non-profit org, may have merit for (re-re-reconsideration.)

Supporting both Jeremy's and Fouad's points, if Consumers International and by extension the Ford Foundation are prepared to set an example and are offering to throw some $ or euros or yuan into an (initially only imaginary) pot, for an exploratory 12 month thing, bravo.  (Yeah I know Jeremy's timeline extends for 4 years, but at least as far as IGC is concerned, coming up with a 4 year plan before doing anything is - unlikely to reach consensus, based on our past experience around this topic.

But if that one year effort does indeed help enable more focused coordination of IGC's overall effort across more international institutions, including funding a few trips for a few select igc list participants to rep igc (and I guess ci too) at one or another meeting where such representation and contributions would otherwise be lacking, sounds good to me. 

Meaning: if CI wishes to award an X$ fellowship to the next co-coordinator of IGC, great; if that next co-coordinator can dole out a few $ for travel, great.  If after those 2 things are in place there is further evidence of the benefits, and broader support for launch of a new org instead of 'just' a virtual org as IGC now is, well that may or may not happen, we shall see what the group wants.  But there is no need for an immediate formalization of IGC for CI and Ford to begin to put some $ where they wish. Imho.    

And congrats Jeremy! : ) 

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 4:43 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Organising for multiple forums

On 31/05/11 15:01, Ian Peter wrote:
So I do think we need to put some effort into changing our organisation to give it the capability to represent civil society on internet governance matters in multiple forums and through multiple voices.

I do not believe that we could undertake this necessary task without at least a part time employee and some minimal travel for funding. In order to receive such funding, we may also need to have a more formal structure or at least an affiliation with a more formally constructed body able to provide the administrative functions on our behalf.

This has been raised before (including by me [0]), and there has always been a reluctance to change.  This doesn't mean that I think there is no point in discussing it again; on the contrary.  I only haven't been pushing the discussion so far because I am "on the way out" as IGC coordinator, and I think the heavy lifting will have to be done by Izumi and the next coordinator.

But if the IGC does decide to proceed along these lines, I may be able to help right away.  I put in a funding application on behalf of Consumers International to Ford Foundation, which was successful, for a project titled "Consumer Representation in the Information Society".  I'm attaching the relevant pages of the proposal.  It is possible that some of the funding could go towards contracting the next co-coordinator of the IGC on a very part-time basis.

But if I have learned anything about the IGC, it's that you can't assume that changes of any sort will go down well with everyone, so I'm going to sit back at this point and see what the reaction is.

[0] http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-12/msg00124.html

--

Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
www.consumersinternational.org<http://www.consumersinternational.org/>
Twitter @ConsumersInt<http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int>

Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't print this email unless necessary.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Tue May 31 13:45:45 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 19:45:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] Interesting Article on Fluent News
Message-ID: <3F4E8C18-C247-43A7-99A0-C6E422C6B92C@gmail.com>

 Treating Cyber Attacks as Act of War?

 link: http://fluentnews.com/s/26792113


FoOgaByte

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From devonrb at gmail.com  Tue May 31 14:48:30 2011
From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 14:48:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: Inexpensive Quality Laptop
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035A3AD5A8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4DE3B86E.3040103@apc.org> <BANLkTimD8AmdB6viK587psSYCtGpJqeSKw@mail.gmail.com> <4DE406CF.1000501@apc.org> <BANLkTimATF1mSbj_g0WN5CdY6cE_kkpVuQ@mail.gmail.com>,<61C0DEB6-A16C-42B4-9AC1-78B853993B89@acm.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035A3AD5A8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <002a01cc1fc3$5752f500$05f8df00$@com>

Hey Can anyone assist me, I need to find a good source of inexpensive
quality laptops. My country is embarking on a IT Infrastructural expansion
and there is need for laptops especially for students of secondary and
tertiary institutions. I need to find a source that is boyh inexpensive and
of High quality.
dB

-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of Lee W McKnight
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 8:21 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Subject: RE: [governance] Draft resolution WSIS follow-up

Yeah Avri, but that review should be more routinized than this first one.

I agree with Miguel generally; although there are alternate ways to
interpret the phrasing in the section headlined ' Enhance Cooperation':

'to enable governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and
responsibilities in
respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the
Internet... through a balanced participation of
all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities'

My read is that this is, indeed, presented as a distinct and possibly
orthogonal issue to the next section on the IGF, and its eventual
improvement.  

But to conclude that the now delayed eventual improvements in IGF might not
help 'enable governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and
responsibilities in
respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet...
through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective
roles and responsibilities' - is premature and under-ambitious for the IGF
imho.  

Lee
 



 
________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of
Avri Doria [avri at acm.org]
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 6:18 PM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] Draft resolution WSIS follow-up

On 30 May 2011, at 18:08, Miguel Alcaine wrote:

> - IGF improvements will take, if successful, more probably until 2013 to
take effect. It will be very stressing to materialize improvements for 2012.
However, the conitnuity in a status quo manner is granted.

which means that any 'improvements' might be going into effect right around
the time the clock starts for the next 5 year review.

a.____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From anriette at apc.org  Tue May 31 16:50:49 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 22:50:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] Online FX event: remote participation
Message-ID: <4DE554A9.4050502@apc.org>

Dear All!

As you may know APC is organising an event at the UN Human Rights
Council on Friday, 1-3 pm CET (12am-2pm GMT) with the Swedish Ministry
of Foreign Affairs.

As most of us won't be in Geneva we have set up remote participation, so
everyone of us can join. You will be able to see and hear the event live
as well as posting comments and questions to the panel.

Please see below for more instructions on how to participate.

The event is a part of APC's CONNECT YOUR RIGHTS campaign and will
address freedom of expression on the Internet, including criminalisation
of online expression, blocking and manipulating of internet content,
invasion of privacy and data protection, unlawful surveillance and
limitations on internet access and women's human rights on the internet.

For more information, including speakers, see the attached flyer and
don't hesitate to contact us for further information.

All you need to do is prepare your browser by installing the VLC plugin
(for free) and after that click the link below.

*********  http://nubes.lscube.org/live?lid=29  *********

VLC is a plugin for your web browser (Internet Explorer and Mozilla
Firefox) and works on Windows, Mac and Linux computers, just follow the
instructions below:

(to test that you have installed the plugin successfully, click this
link: http://media.lscube.org/view?what=/ls3_tutorial.m4v . You will get
an error message if the plugin is not installed and a blank video screen
if it works)

UBUNTU (which is a great alternative to Windows and Mac, based on Linux)
Ubuntu users can quickly install everything that it is needed typing the
command below in a terminal window:

  sudo apt-get install mozilla-plugin-vlc

Other Linux distributions have their own command, but the idea is the
same, they provide a package for the VLC plugin.

WINDOWS
Windows users must install the VLC plugin using the plugin option in
installer after downloading from (Remember to check the Mozilla and
ActiveX flags inside the install options if prompted)
http://sourceforge.net/projects/vlc/files/1.1.9/win32/vlc-1.1.9-win32.exe/download

MAC
Mac users will have to install the plugin from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/vlc/files/1.0.5/macosx/vlc-plugin-1.0.5-intel.dmg/download

If you need any assistance on remote participation, please contact
henrik at apc.org, analia at apc.org or grady at apc.org, and for more
information about the campaign and APC's Internet Rights work, please
contact joy at apc.org

For more information on the event, please see apc.org or the information
flyer attached to this email.

Hope to see you online on Friday!

Kind regards
Henrik and the Internet Rights are Human Rights team


-- 
Henrik Almström
Association for Progressive Communications, APC
Johannesburg, South Africa
skype: henrikalmstrom
henrik at apc.org
mobile: +27 72 311 9613
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To 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: APCHRC_Flyer_20110531.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 119295 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110531/f50cc377/attachment.pdf>