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: <4DE4AA3A.1030107@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035A3AD5AF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: 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 : > 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 > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > 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 > > --                         >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: Hello, On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:44 AM, parminder 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: In message <4DBF8F2A.3060904 at itforchange.net>, at 10:44:18 on Tue, 3 May 2011, parminder 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: In message <4DBFA6B4.7090503 at itforchange.net>, at 12:24:44 on Tue, 3 May 2011, parminder 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: References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>, 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 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>, <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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:50 PM, parminder wrote: > Hi Lee > > 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: 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>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: 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: -------------- 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: >X-Originating-IP: [202.12.29.199] >Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:59:20 +1000 >From: Sylvia Cadena >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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2011 Communication and Soci.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 493772 bytes Desc: not available URL: 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>, <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. (message from parminder on Tue, 03 May 2011 17:20:38 +0530) References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> parminder 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>, <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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <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: --- En date de : Lun 2.5.11, Alice Munyua a écrit : De: Alice Munyua Objet: [DigAfrica] Fwd: Pre-IGF event Kenya and ITU À: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" Cc: DigAfrica at yahoogroups.com, i-network at dgroups.org, "KICTAnet Media Discussions" 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> <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: References: <206183.77052.qm@web39423.mail.mud.yahoo.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 a écrit : > > De: Alice Munyua > Objet: [DigAfrica] Fwd: Pre-IGF event Kenya and ITU > À: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" > Cc: DigAfrica at yahoogroups.com, i-network at dgroups.org, "KICTAnet Media > Discussions" > 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: References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net> 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> <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> <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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <4DC1E259.7090406@eff.org> Message-ID: In message <4DC1E259.7090406 at eff.org>, at 16:33:45 on Wed, 4 May 2011, Katitza Rodriguez 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> <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> <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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <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: 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <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: 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" : > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <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 a écrit : > > De: Alice Munyua > Objet: [DigAfrica] Fwd: Pre-IGF event Kenya and ITU > À: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" > Cc: DigAfrica at yahoogroups.com, i-network at dgroups.org, "KICTAnet Media > Discussions" > 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: In message <1FB9EC17-F0F5-447D-88B1-AD22DB1DA24C at uzh.ch>, at 10:47:15 on Thu, 5 May 2011, William Drake 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: 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> 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net> <4DC1E259.7090406@eff.org> 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1px.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp 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> <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> <4DC29558.8030306@itforchange.net> Message-ID: The G8 meeting that's a concern seems to be a side event, not part of the G8 proper. See 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 >> 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> <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> <4DC29558.8030306@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20110505152635.2134315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> parminder 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 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 >> 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> <4DC1E259.7090406@eff.org> <4DC2A0D7.2050503@eff.org> Message-ID: In message <4DC2A0D7.2050503 at eff.org>, at 06:06:31 on Thu, 5 May 2011, Katitza Rodriguez 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: References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net> <4DC1E259.7090406@eff.org> <4DC2A0D7.2050503@eff.org> 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 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> <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> <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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: 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> <4DC29558.8030306@itforchange.net> Message-ID: 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 : > The G8 meeting that's a concern seems to be a side event, not part of the G8 > proper. > > See > > > 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 >>> 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> <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: 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <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> <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 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: 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: References: Message-ID: 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 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: References: Message-ID: 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 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 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: 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: 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> 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 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: 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 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4DC6D38A.1080208@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <4DC6D38A.1080208@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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 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 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <4DC6D38A.1080208@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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 > > On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Ginger Paque 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 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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <4DC6D38A.1080208@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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 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: References: Message-ID: 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 : > 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: References: Message-ID: 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 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 : >> 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: 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 : > 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: Message-ID: 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 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> 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 . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm 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 and the Internet technical community , 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> 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 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 Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> 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 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 > > and the Internet technical community > > > > > , 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 Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <4DC772D8.9030408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:51 AM, parminder wrote: > > > On Monday 09 May 2011 10:07 AM, McTim wrote: > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <4DC772D8.9030408@itforchange.net> 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 > wrote: > > > > On Monday 09 May 2011 10:07 AM, McTim wrote: >> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm 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 Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <4DC773C0.20409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:55 AM, parminder wrote: > > > On Monday 09 May 2011 10:07 AM, McTim wrote: > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm 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 > > > and the Internet technical community > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <4DC772D8.9030408@itforchange.net> <4DC77563.80301@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:02 AM, parminder wrote: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net> <1FB9EC17-F0F5-447D-88B1-AD22DB1DA24C@uzh.ch> Message-ID: 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 : >> 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> 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 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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile >> and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and > to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: 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 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 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 . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net 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: References: 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 > *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. > > -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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: References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> Message-ID: 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 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 > 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. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> 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> <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 . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From 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: References: Message-ID: 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 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <4DC772D8.9030408@itforchange.net> <4DC77563.80301@itforchange.net> Message-ID: 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 wrote: > > > >> >> 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <4DC772D8.9030408@itforchange.net> <4DC77563.80301@itforchange.net> Message-ID: 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 wrote: > > > >> >> 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: References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> 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 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 >> 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. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: References: Message-ID: 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 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: References: , 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 » 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 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: ,,<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 » 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: ,,<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 » 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: ,,<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 » 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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: ,,<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 » >>>> >>>> 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> To 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 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. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The New York Times _____ May 8, 2011 The Unwisdom of Elites By PAUL 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 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. ===================================================================== More in Opinion (3 of 18 articles) Op-Ed Columnist: Whose Foreign Policy Is It? Read More > Close __._,_.___ Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <03F23BE5-6C2C-4885-934B-7C79AD855008@ella.com> Message-ID: On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Avri Doria 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: References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <03F23BE5-6C2C-4885-934B-7C79AD855008@ella.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 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: References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <03F23BE5-6C2C-4885-934B-7C79AD855008@ella.com> Message-ID: On 9 May 2011, at 11:39, McTim wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Avri Doria 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: 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 : > 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: References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <03F23BE5-6C2C-4885-934B-7C79AD855008@ella.com> Message-ID: Totally agree with Avri. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 9 May 2011, at 11:39, McTim wrote: > > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Avri Doria 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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 . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From 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: Message-ID: 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 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: References: Message-ID: 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 » 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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: Well done Jeanette! divina Le 10/05/11 10:42, « Jeanette Hofmann » 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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 > . 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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 >>> 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 >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: References: 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: References: 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 Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:31:38 To: ; Divina MEIGS Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marie GEORGES Cc: Avri Doria; Jeanette Hofmann; CW Mail 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 » 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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><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><4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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" Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:47:29 To: ; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ; Jeremy Malcolm Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" 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><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><4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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" Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:47:29 To: ; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ; Jeremy Malcolm Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" 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 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 and the list in ). 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 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 and the list in ). 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 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 > > and the list in > ). > > 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 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 > > and the list in > ). > > 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: 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 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 and the list in ). 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: >besides, becasue of the security hole for OSX, >it isn't even usable anymore on MAC. does this fix? 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 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 >> >> >> and the list in >> ). >> >> 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 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 > > and the list in > ). > > 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 Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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 . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From 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: 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 Organization: Consumers International Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:13:45 +0800 To: , Jeanette Hofmann 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 . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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: Message-ID: 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 » 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 > Organization: Consumers International > Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:13:45 +0800 > To: , Jeanette Hofmann > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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 . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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: 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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: 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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: <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 >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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> <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 >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To 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 > -- 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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: <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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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> <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 , 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 >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To 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 > -- 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA31B@marzouki.info> Message-ID: 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 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 > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> To 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 > > > > -- > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-! 1475755DA31B@marzouki.info> Message-ID: 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 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 > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> To 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 > > > > -- > 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: 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA31B@marzouki.info> Message-ID: 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 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 > 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 >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>> >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>> To 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 >> > >> >> -- >> 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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 Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FactSheet e-G8 ENG.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 239317 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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: <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 Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-! ! 1475755DA31B@marzouki.info> Message-ID: 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 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 >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> To 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 >>> >> >> -- >> 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-! ! ! 1475755DA31B@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 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 >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>> To 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 >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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: 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> Message-ID: 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 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 > 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 > >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>> > >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>>>> To 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 > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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> <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 >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To 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 >> > > -- > 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-! ! ! ! 1475755DA31B@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: 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: References: Message-ID: This is excellent. Will there be remote participation? On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:51 AM, William Drake 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: References: 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 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 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 and the list in ). 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 Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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: <14320FD4-C5BC-4C58-B88D-94928AB0A114@ella.com> Message-ID: 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 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 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 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 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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> <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 , 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 >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To 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 >> > > -- > 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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> <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 , 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 >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> To 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 >>> >> >> -- >> 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> <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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-! ! ! ! 1475755DA31B@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: References: Message-ID: Thanks Bill, I will not be in Geneva but will try to attend remotely. Best Olga 2011/5/11 William Drake > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: References: Message-ID: 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 > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: References: Message-ID: 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 wrote: > Thanks Bill, I will not be in Geneva but will try to attend remotely. > Best > Olga > > 2011/5/11 William Drake >> >> 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> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <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> <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 >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> To 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 >>> >> >> -- >> 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 Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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 . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From 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: References: 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: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm 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: References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> 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 . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From 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: Message-ID: 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 » 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 >> 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 >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> To 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 >>> >> >> -- >> 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: 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 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. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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 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 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 . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From 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: <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com> Message-ID: 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 wrote: > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Jeremy Malcolm 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: References: <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com> Message-ID: 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 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: 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: References: <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com> Message-ID: I am looking forward to participating remotely. Sala On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Fouad Bajwa 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 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: References: <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com> Message-ID: 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: References: , 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 » 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 >> 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 >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> To 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 >>> >> >> -- >> 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: 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 wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Jeremy Malcolm 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Lee W McKnight 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: References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>, 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 > wrote: Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Jeremy Malcolm > 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 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: References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: 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: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: 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: References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: 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: References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Adam Peake 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: <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: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Avri Doria 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: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF92@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org><20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch><4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org><20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> 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 Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 To: ; Norbert Bollow Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel 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 wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Jeremy Malcolm 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 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 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><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: ; Marilia Maciel; Norbert Bollow 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 Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 To: ; Norbert Bollow Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel 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 wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Jeremy Malcolm 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <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: 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, 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: ; Marilia Maciel; > Norbert Bollow > 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 > Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300 > To: ; Norbert Bollow > ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel > 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 wrote: >> >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> > > Jeremy Malcolm 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: References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <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: On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Fouad Bajwa 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,   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: ; Marilia Maciel; >> Norbert Bollow >> 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 >> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300 >> To: ; Norbert Bollow >> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel >> 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 wrote: >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> > > Jeremy Malcolm 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: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF92@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, 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: 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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: References: 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 >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: (message from McTim on Thu, 12 May 2011 16:00:22 +0300) References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20110512164515.2C1AB15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> McTim 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: References: <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com> Message-ID: 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 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: References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> 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: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20110512164515.2C1AB15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: :) 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 wrote: > McTim 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: 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: References: Message-ID: 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 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: References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <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: <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 wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Fouad Bajwa 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, 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: ; Marilia Maciel; >>> Norbert Bollow >>> 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 >>> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300 >>> To: ; Norbert Bollow >>> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel >>> 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 wrote: >>>> >>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm 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> <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> <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: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <8DA85CB4-21D3-4AA8-B720-6D6B681F0495@ella.com> Message-ID: 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 wrote: > > On 12 May 2011, at 09:51, McTim wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Avri Doria 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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> <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> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org> Message-ID: 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 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: References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <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> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org> 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 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: References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> 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 > 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 -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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> <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> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org> Message-ID: 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: References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <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> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org> 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: References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <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> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org> 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