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

Dear all,

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

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

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

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

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

best,

izumi

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



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

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

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


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

Hi All

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

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

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

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

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

Parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110503/ef0e1c34/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Tue May  3 02:43:04 2011
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 12:13:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinbCYCmebspyJsvE+c3_E5W88h+6Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

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

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

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


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

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

Sivasubramanian M

>
> Parminder
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110503/7cbadcfb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue May  3 02:54:44 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 12:24:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
Message-ID: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>

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

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

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

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


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

Quote ends.

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

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

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

Parminder

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110503/98a267e0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Tue May  3 04:07:12 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 09:07:12 +0100
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <n5YgMfswe7vNFAxw@internetpolicyagency.com>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Tue May  3 04:51:37 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 09:51:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Parminder,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lee


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue May  3 07:50:38 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 17:20:38 +0530
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>,<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>

Hi Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue May  3 08:13:38 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 15:13:38 +0300
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=cuH0QcnWYtW91cbUgrDEE9PsBpQ@mail.gmail.com>

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

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

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

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




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


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


-- 
Cheers,

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

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

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


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

Dear List,

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

Kind Regards,

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

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

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


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

Hi 
Just for information: 

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

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

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 01 G7 1995 Conclusions de la conf?rence interminist?rielle du G7 sur la soci?t? de l?information organis?e ? Bruxelles les 25.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 71680 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110503/1b02a29b/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------




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

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


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

Dear Parminder

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

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

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

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

With my friendliest greetings ... and regrets

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT - France 



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

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

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


From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Tue May  3 11:16:37 2011
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 11:16:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] Nominations open 2011 Communication for Social Change
 Awards / UQ CCSC
Message-ID: <p0620073ec9e476f5a779@[10.0.1.6]>

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

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

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

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

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

My - touche - to yours:
________________________________________

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

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

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

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

>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

'

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

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

parminder


> (It isn't clear yet what the "IG map" that I'm planning to work on
> will contain, but I tend to think that it should contain besides
> positive information about the impact of various IG-related fora also
> references to such criticism.)
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110504/6c7535c2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From avri at acm.org  Wed May  4 07:38:48 2011
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 07:38:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <29462422.15935.1304435085586.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g09>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net> <29462422.15935.1304435085586.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g09>
Message-ID: <36ACF2C1-A4B0-44E1-9226-6EF2901C0F2B@acm.org>


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


From pbekono at gmail.com  Wed May  4 11:51:03 2011
From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 16:51:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Pre-IGF event Kenya and ITU
In-Reply-To: <206183.77052.qm@web39423.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <206183.77052.qm@web39423.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimuUis=5C5-bmRL_vgvhha6Kgagvg@mail.gmail.com>

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

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


    Dear Colleagues,



    (apologies for cross posting)



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


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



    ·      Broadband:
        Access, challenges and opportunities

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

    ·      Cloud computing
        and;

    ·      Cyber security and Privacy.

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


    More details
        will be made available soon.




        Best regards


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

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

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


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

Wolfgang,

I 100% agree with you.

Kind regards,

Olivier

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

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

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

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

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


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

Hi,

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

a.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Mike

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Wolfgang,

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

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

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

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

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

Should IGC make such statement to the G8 meeting organisers?

Parminder

>
> Wolfgang
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110505/9f332a70/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Wolfgang:
Yes


	 

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

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

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


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

Thanks to Wolfgang for this substantial report of history.

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

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

Norbert

=

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

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

But I started a new personal blog:

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

continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia.

Norbert Klein
nhklein at gmx.net
Phnom Penh / Cambodia


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110505/7fb3ac6d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


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

Thanks to Wolfgang and Parminder 

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



Sure, IGC should ! And as quickly as possible !

Best greetings
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT-France  




> Message du 05/05/11 08:14
> De : "parminder" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
> 
> Wolfgang,
> 
> Thanks for this very informative historical brief. There are many points here that I will like to engage with, but let me just respond to two connected ones.
> 
> On Wednesday 04 May 2011 08:16 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: Hi everybody SNIP Later Al Gore presented this to a G 7 summit in Brussels in 1995, where also a so-called "Global Business Round Table" took place in parallel (which led later to the establishmend of the Global Business Dialogue on eCommerce/GBDe). After the Brussels meeting the G 7 (later the G 8) continued to work on this issue which finally produced the G 8 Okinawa Declaration from 2000 when the G 8 established to Digital Opportunity Task Froce (DotForce). http://www.undp.sk/uploads/Okinawa%20charter.pdf The G 8 DotForce Initiative was countered by an ECOSOC ministerial meeting in 2001 (a lot of UN member states felt excluded from the G7/8 process in Okinawa) and the UN established the UN ICT Task Force (UNICTTF). 
> That is an interesting parallel. Now that G 8 seems to be in a 'global agreement (read, among powerful countries, who are the self appointed trustees for the whole world) on key Internet issues'  sorts of mood, what next. Internet governance is even more political, globally, than was ICTD (the latter being more national kind of thing). So do we expect a UN backlash. It is already on through the politics around the 'enhanced cooperation' process. What is our, global civil society's, specifically, IGC's, position on this?
> 
> Between a G8 led process of the kind underway, and a WSIS mandated 'enhanced cooperation' process, where do we put our weight? (enough burying our collective heads in the sand on the global IG policy issue. That will only bring further harm to our cause. At least now we must learn our lessons that abdication would do on this issue.)
> 
> (SNIP)
> We should not forget that the WSIS/WGIG Internet Governance definition, which gives all stakeholder a role and calls for shared policy and rules development and decision making, was adopted by the heads of states of 190+ UN member states in Tunis in November 2005. Governments of the world commited themselves to the multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance. The French government, host of the G 8, obviously ignores this. Somebody should tell this to the president of this republic. Why not us, the IGC. Who else will? But can we just write to them to make the process more multistakeholder, and not write that a closed process among the most powerful countries is not acceptable to the global civil society, representing marginalised interests, and all countires should be brought to the table to discus the issues that the G8 Internet meeting is proposing to do, and in this regard using the WSIS mandated 'enhanced cooperation' track is the right way to go.
> 
> Should IGC make such statement to the G8 meeting organisers?
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110505/1b47b8b2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu May  5 04:28:17 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 16:28:17 +0800
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>



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

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

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

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

   -- 

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


Empowering Tomorrow's Consumers
 CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong
Kong 

Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join
consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and
discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register
now!
http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress [1]

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


Links:
------
[1] http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
[2]
http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110505/c24060a0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu May  5 04:43:43 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 13:43:43 +0500
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF35@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
	<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
	<20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF35@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=sfYwSa=D00c-k4DqH8ZFS=rh8Og@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Parminder and Wolfgang,

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

-- FoO

2011/5/5 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
> Parminder:
> Should IGC make such statement to the G8 meeting organisers?
>
> Wolfgang:
> Yes
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



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

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

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


From william.drake at uzh.ch  Thu May  5 04:47:15 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:47:15 +0200
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1FB9EC17-F0F5-447D-88B1-AD22DB1DA24C@uzh.ch>

Hi

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

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

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

Bottom line, the RP needs to be nailed down.

Cheers,

Bill






--Please note new email address--

***************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch
www.williamdrake.org
****************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110505/c49df4b3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu May  5 05:53:37 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 11:53:37 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: Pre-IGF event Kenya and ITU
References: <206183.77052.qm@web39423.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <BANLkTimuUis=5C5-bmRL_vgvhha6Kgagvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <42ACFD7F-9359-43E3-9D84-8CB2AFAE028B@ella.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF39@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

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

________________________________

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



Hi,

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

a.


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110505/9664fc95/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May  5 09:06:31 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 06:06:31 -0700
Subject: [governance] the forthcoming MAG meeting and open consultations
In-Reply-To: <W0H8$4kxmkwNFA$d@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <4DBF8F2A.3060904@itforchange.net> <n5YgMfswe7vNFAxw@internetpolicyagency.com> <4DC1E259.7090406@eff.org> <W0H8$4kxmkwNFA$d@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <4DC2A0D7.2050503@eff.org>

Hi Roland,

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

The Commission will address the following priority themes:

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


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

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





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

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

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

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


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

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

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

All the same, it's pretty offensive.

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

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

France G8: Sarkozy and Internet Freedom just screams oxymoron.

Adam



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



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

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

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

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


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

parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

About Canada 3.0 & why you should attend

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

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

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

Dialogue with the best and brightest minds in Canada.

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

Be the future. 

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

Note who/what isn't invited/included.

M

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


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

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

All the same, it's pretty offensive.

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

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

France G8: Sarkozy and Internet Freedom just screams oxymoron.

Adam



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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Hi Roland

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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



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

Norbert,

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

Parminder

> I suspect that this probably why the
> G8 find the idea appealing to try to decide things simply among
> themselves.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110505/a62def33/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu May  5 12:18:14 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 18:18:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] new gTLD Heraring
References: <76777A2384ED46D2B373E66537D3DAEC@userPC>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

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

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

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


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

Dear list,

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

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

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

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

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

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

izumi


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

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

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


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

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

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

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




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

> Hi everybody
>
> the Clinton administration introduced the Cyber-Issues into the G 7 and UN
> with its Global Information Infrastructure Initiative (GII) from 1994 (which
> enlarged the US National Information Infrastructure Initiative (NII) from
> September 1993. Al Gore himself presented the idea of the GII (which did not
> include issues like DNS management) to the ITU Development Conference in
> Buenos Aires in 1994.
> http://habitat.igc.org/ics/gii-itu/wtdc-bad.html.
>
> Later Al Gore presented this to a G 7 summit in Brussels in 1995, where
> also a so-called "Global Business Round Table" took place in parallel (which
> led later to the establishmend of the Global Business Dialogue on
> eCommerce/GBDe). After the Brussels meeting the G 7 (later the G 8)
> continued to work on this issue which finally produced the G 8 Okinawa
> Declaration from 2000 when the G 8 established to Digital Opportunity Task
> Froce (DotForce).
> http://www.undp.sk/uploads/Okinawa%20charter.pdf
>
> The G 8 DotForce Initiative was countered by an ECOSOC ministerial meeting
> in 2001 (a lot of UN member states felt excluded from the G7/8 process in
> Okinawa) and the UN established the UN ICT Task Force (UNICTTF). The Bush
> administration had the cyberissues not on its priority list so the G 8
> DotForce became irrelevant and was later more or less integrated into the
> UNICTTF, which struggled after 2002 to become relevant in the WSIS process.
> UNICTTF did play a role in the beginning of WSIS, but lost its momentum
> later. The mandate ended in 2005 and it was substituted by the Global
> Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID) which is nothing more than a paper
> tiger with no real identity and function.
>
> With regard to the forthcoming G 8 meeting in Deauville, this is indeed a
> top down, closed and exclusive event which irgnores totally all results of
> the Internet Governance debate of the last decade. This should be widely and
> loudly critisized. We discussed this with the French GAC representative in
> Strasbourg and he explained us that the governmental people in France doing
> ICANN and IGF issues, are widely disconnected from the sherpas, nominated by
> the president, to prepare the Deauville summit. This is a very serious
> point, at least in my eyes.
>
> In the ICANN Studienkreis meeting last week in Budapest, the discussion
> went one step further, flagging the issue that there is generally a deep gap
> within (nearly all) governments between governmental agencies/ministeries
> dealing with Cybersecurity and departments dealing with the Internet
> Economy, with Human Rights in Cyberspace and generally with Internet
> Governance (ICANN/IGF etc.). As a result one and the same government talks
> with different voices and takes different positions in different bodies.
>
> One conclusion from this is to call for governments to bring their house in
> order and to reach a higher level of inter-agency coordination before they
> enter into a multistakeholder dialogue. Otherwiese they undermine the trust
> of the non-governmental stakeholders into governmental actions if one
> representative of a government supports multistakeholderism in one
> institution, but another body of the same government ingnores totally the
> multistakeholder principle when planning events like the forthcoming one in
> Paris/Deauville.
>
> We should not forget that the WSIS/WGIG Internet Governance definition,
> which gives all stakeholder a role and calls for shared policy and rules
> development and decision making, was adopted by the heads of states of 190+
> UN member states in Tunis in November 2005. Governments of the world
> commited themselves to the multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance.
> The French government, host of the G 8, obviously ignores this. Somebody
> should tell this to the president of this republic.
>
> Wolfgang
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110506/b0dc9235/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From nb at bollow.ch  Fri May  6 06:13:52 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri,  6 May 2011 12:13:52 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC2C7D5.5040101@itforchange.net> (message from parminder on
	Thu, 05 May 2011 21:22:53 +0530)
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC29558.8030306@itforchange.net> <20110505152635.2134315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC2C7D5.5040101@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <20110506101352.BF55015C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

Parminder,

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

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

Greetings,
Norbert



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



-- 
Sala

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

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

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


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

This link takes you to the detailed infographic:

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

-- FOo

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

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

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


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sat May  7 21:59:00 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 13:59:00 +1200
Subject: [governance] Greetings from Fiji!
Message-ID: <BANLkTikF=vdNVLgXSY9UMYwz=QRSth=x9g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi,

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

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

Warm Regards,

-- 
Sala

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

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

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


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

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

(proposed draft starts)

    Basic courtesy stuff.....

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

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

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

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

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

    closing and salutations.....

(ends)

.......


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


On Thursday 05 May 2011 01:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:43:18 +0700, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>     Thanks to Wolfgang for this substantial report of history.
>
>     And thanks to Parminder for drawing the correct conclusion: Nobody
>     else will do it, speak up and remind those who forget the history
>     in this case, if Civil Society does not speak up, reminding the
>     (present representatives of governments) that their predecessors
>     achieved great things which they seem to forget.
>
>     How is this going to be organized? The major elements are in
>     Wolfgang's write-up; it has to be mad short, focused on what what
>     at the UN General Assembly setting the WSIS process on the way as
>     multi-stakeholder, and the Tunis commitments also BY THE
>     GOVERNMENTS PRESENT to the multi-stakeholder approach. And add
>     some achievements since (which?).
>
> There seems to be agreement that the IGC should respond (and I concur 
> with this).  I would like to invite Wolfgang or Parminder to volunteer 
> to write a first draft.  If they do not have time, I should be able to 
> put something together as a draft based on their contributions to the 
> list.
>
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *Empowering Tomorrow's Consumers
> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong*
>
> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer 
> groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on 
> the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>

-- 

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


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

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

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


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

Hi,

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

some possible recommendation below.


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

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

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

Recommend substituting: 

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

with something like:

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

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

Recommend substituting: 

> principle of multistakeholderism 

with 

principle of multistakeholder participation

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

Recommend substituting with something like:

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

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

Recommend substituting something like:

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


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

Recommend substituting something like:

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


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

Recommend dropping this.


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


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

Again recommend replacing Multistakeholderism with multistakeholder participation.

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

Again recommend replacing Multistakeholderism with multistakeholder participation.

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


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

recommend replacing with something like:

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


> closing and salutations.....
> (ends)
> …....
> 
> …..................
> 
> On Thursday 05 May 2011 01:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:43:18 +0700, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks to Wolfgang for this substantial report of history.
>> 
>> And thanks to Parminder for drawing the correct conclusion: Nobody else will do it, speak up and remind those who forget the history in this case, if Civil Society does not speak up, reminding the (present representatives of governments) that their predecessors achieved great things which they seem to forget.
>> 
>> How is this going to be organized? The major elements are in Wolfgang's write-up; it has to be mad short, focused on what what at the UN General Assembly setting the WSIS process on the way as multi-stakeholder, and the Tunis commitments also BY THE GOVERNMENTS PRESENT to the multi-stakeholder approach. And add some achievements since (which?).
>>  
>> There seems to be agreement that the IGC should respond (and I concur with this).  I would like to invite Wolfgang or Parminder to volunteer to write a first draft.  If they do not have time, I should be able to put something together as a draft based on their contributions to the list.
>> 
>>  
>> -- 
>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>> Project Coordinator 
>> Consumers International
>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>> 
>> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
>> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong
>> 
>> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
>> 
>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change 
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.net
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
> <itfc_logo.png>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

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

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

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


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

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110508/5bf426b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


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

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

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

Best,

Marília

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

>  Thanks Parminder and Avri. This is an important statement to finish and
> deliver. I support the way it is going with Avri's edits.
> Best, Ginger
>
> *Ms. Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> *IGCBP Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> *The latest from Diplo...*Keep up with Diplo on Twitter. Follow
> @DiplomacyEdu <http://www.twitter.com/DiplomacyEdu> for all the news about
> our programmes, courses, research, events, and more!
>
>
>
>
> On 5/8/2011 11:11 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In general I support this, though would recommend some edits.  thanks for getting the discussion started.
>
> some possible recommendation below.
>
>
> On 8 May 2011, at 04:08, parminder wrote:
>
>
>  Although there has been no further discussion on the list on this subject, I submit below some text for  a possible IGC statement to the G 8. Please comment and contribute.... parminder
>
> (proposed draft starts)
>
> Basic courtesy stuff.....
> We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8 Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........,with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many key issues, especially in the information society arena.
>
>   We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet meeting is being organised which flies in the face of all canons of public policy making and public deliberations.
>
>  Recommend substituting:
>
> "flies in the face of all canons of public policy making and public deliberations"
>
> with something like:
>
> "is ignoring current best practice in public policy making."
>
>
>  It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholderism that has evolved globally, especially in the area of
>
>  Recommend substituting:
>
>
>  principle of multistakeholderism
>
>  with
>
> principle of multistakeholder participation
>
>
>  Internet governance. The proposed G 8 Internet meeting is being organised by large industry players and the invitations, other than to involved government actors, have also largely gone to big businesses. We hear that invitations to the meeting are also linked to contribution of funds for it.
>
>  Recommend substituting with something like:
>
> It appears that the G8 meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to industry and government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage between donations and invitations.
>
>
>  Big business already have a disproportionately large influence on policy processes for them         to require a dedicated meeting with top G 8 leaders and officials to determine what should be the global agenda for Internet related policies.
>
>  Recommend substituting something like:
>
> Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related policies is inappropriate.
>
>
>
>  On the contrary, what is required is an audience with public interest actors, or civil society actors, who will bring to the table the real concerns of the people and different sections of the society in this area.
>
>  Recommend substituting something like:
>
> What is required is a discussion that includes civil society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society, interests and concerns.
>
>
>
>  We are afraid that the proposed meeting gives industry lobbying a brand new legitimate political image, which         is a dangerous trend for global Internet governance, and in fact, for global governance, in general.
>
>
>
> Recommend dropping this.
>
>
>
>  It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global Internet related issues.
>
>   Multistakeholderism is an important part of these global IG related processes.
>
>  Again recommend replacing Multistakeholderism with multistakeholder participation.
>
>
>  We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a significant step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholderism.
>
>  Again recommend replacing Multistakeholderism with multistakeholder participation.
>
>
>  We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF.
>
>   This makes it even more stark and unacceptable that the proposed G 8 meeting be held in the planned manner.
>
>  recommend replacing with something like:
>
> The strong support that many of G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.
>
>
>
>  closing and salutations.....
> (ends)
> …....
>
> …..................
>
> On Thursday 05 May 2011 01:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>  On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:43:18 +0700, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks to Wolfgang for this substantial report of history.
>
> And thanks to Parminder for drawing the correct conclusion: Nobody else will do it, speak up and remind those who forget the history in this case, if Civil Society does not speak up, reminding the (present representatives of governments) that their predecessors achieved great things which they seem to forget.
>
> How is this going to be organized? The major elements are in Wolfgang's write-up; it has to be mad short, focused on what what at the UN General Assembly setting the WSIS process on the way as multi-stakeholder, and the Tunis commitments also BY THE GOVERNMENTS PRESENT to the multi-stakeholder approach. And add some achievements since (which?).
>
> There seems to be agreement that the IGC should respond (and I concur with this).  I would like to invite Wolfgang or Parminder to volunteer to write a first draft.  If they do not have time, I should be able to put something together as a draft based on their contributions to the list.
>
>
> --
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong
>
> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
>  --
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOCwww.ITforChange.net
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
> <itfc_logo.png>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110508/b2acff6e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


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

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

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

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
> proposed by Avri.
> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate the
> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what CS
> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net. Does
> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be in
> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
> Best,
> Marília
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Parminder and Avri. This is an important statement to finish and
>> deliver. I support the way it is going with Avri's edits.
>> Best, Ginger
>>
>> Ms. Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>> IGCBP Coordinator
>> DiploFoundation
>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>>
>> The latest from Diplo...Keep up with Diplo on Twitter.
>> Follow @DiplomacyEdu for all the news about our programmes, courses,
>> research, events, and more!
>>
>>
>> On 5/8/2011 11:11 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> In general I support this, though would recommend some edits.  thanks for
>> getting the discussion started.
>> some possible recommendation below.
>> On 8 May 2011, at 04:08, parminder wrote:
>>
>> Although there has been no further discussion on the list on this subject,
>> I submit below some text for  a possible IGC statement to the G 8. Please
>> comment and contribute.... parminder
>> (proposed draft starts)
>> Basic courtesy stuff.....
>> We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8
>> Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........,with a view
>> to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key global
>> Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8
>> countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially
>> important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many key
>> issues, especially in the information society arena.
>>
>> We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet meeting
>> is being organised which flies in the face of all canons of public policy
>> making and public deliberations.
>>
>> Recommend substituting:
>> "flies in the face of all canons of public policy making and public
>> deliberations"
>> with something like:
>> "is ignoring current best practice in public policy making."
>>
>> It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholderism that has evolved
>> globally, especially in the area of
>>
>> Recommend substituting:
>>
>> principle of multistakeholderism
>>
>> with
>> principle of multistakeholder participation
>>
>> Internet governance. The proposed G 8 Internet meeting is being organised
>> by large industry players and the invitations, other than to involved
>> government actors, have also largely gone to big businesses. We hear that
>> invitations to the meeting are also linked to contribution of funds for it.
>>
>> Recommend substituting with something like:
>> It appears that the G8 meeting is organized by large Industry with access
>> given only to industry and government actors.  We have also understood that
>> there is a linkage between donations and invitations.
>>
>> Big business already have a disproportionately large influence on policy
>> processes for them         to require a dedicated meeting with top G 8
>> leaders and officials to determine what should be the global agenda for
>> Internet related policies.
>>
>> Recommend substituting something like:
>> Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
>> government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting
>> with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet
>> related policies is inappropriate.
>>
>> On the contrary, what is required is an audience with public interest
>> actors, or civil society actors, who will bring to the table the real
>> concerns of the people and different sections of the society in this area.
>>
>> Recommend substituting something like:
>> What is required is a discussion that includes civil society actors, who
>> will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest derived from
>> a diversity of people's, of many sections of society, interests and
>> concerns.
>>
>> We are afraid that the proposed meeting gives industry lobbying a brand
>> new legitimate political image, which         is a dangerous trend for
>> global Internet governance, and in fact, for global governance, in general.
>>
>>
>> Recommend dropping this.
>>
>> It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially
>> a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations,
>> quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for
>> architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas
>> will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries
>> engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more
>> democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal
>> footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information
>> Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global Internet
>> related issues.
>>
>> Multistakeholderism is an important part of these global IG related
>> processes.
>>
>> Again recommend replacing Multistakeholderism with multistakeholder
>> participation.
>>
>> We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a significant step backwards both
>> for global democracy and for multistakeholderism.
>>
>> Again recommend replacing Multistakeholderism with multistakeholder
>> participation.
>>
>> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G 8
>> Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN
>> IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8 countries
>> for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF.
>>
>> This makes it even more stark and unacceptable that the proposed G 8
>> meeting be held in the planned manner.
>>
>> recommend replacing with something like:
>> The strong support that many of G8 countries, including your own, have
>> shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to
>> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners is
>> baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.
>>
>> closing and salutations.....
>> (ends)
>> …....
>> …..................
>> On Thursday 05 May 2011 01:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:43:18 +0700, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
>> Thanks to Wolfgang for this substantial report of history.
>> And thanks to Parminder for drawing the correct conclusion: Nobody else
>> will do it, speak up and remind those who forget the history in this case,
>> if Civil Society does not speak up, reminding the (present representatives
>> of governments) that their predecessors achieved great things which they
>> seem to forget.
>> How is this going to be organized? The major elements are in Wolfgang's
>> write-up; it has to be mad short, focused on what what at the UN General
>> Assembly setting the WSIS process on the way as multi-stakeholder, and the
>> Tunis commitments also BY THE GOVERNMENTS PRESENT to the multi-stakeholder
>> approach. And add some achievements since (which?).
>>
>> There seems to be agreement that the IGC should respond (and I concur with
>> this).  I would like to invite Wolfgang or Parminder to volunteer to write a
>> first draft.  If they do not have time, I should be able to put something
>> together as a draft based on their contributions to the list.
>>
>> --
>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>> Project Coordinator
>> Consumers International
>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
>> Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
>> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong
>> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
>> groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the
>> issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
>> necessary.
>>
>> --
>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>> Executive Director
>> IT for Change
>> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
>> www.ITforChange.net
>> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
>> <itfc_logo.png>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>



-- 
Sala

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

izumi

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

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

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


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

Dear Sara and all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

izumi


2011/5/8 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
> Dear Izumi,
>
> Greetings from Fiji! How is the recovery work in Japan? What is the
> status of things there? It would be great to know what's happening in
> Japan in terms of infrastructure, ICT etc? How is the work on the
> ground?
>
> Our prayers and thoughts are still with your people as you journey to
> rebuild and mitigate the risks.
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> --
> Sala
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


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

Dear Izumi,

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

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

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


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

Kind Regards,

Sala


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



-- 
Sala

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

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

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


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

Thanks Bill for the observation below.

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

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

Should we prepare yet another statement of request/protest?

izumi


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



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

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

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

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


From divina.meigs at orange.fr  Sun May  8 23:56:52 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 05:56:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=LJHSsiJsndRSTnsFL8v67qvmNXA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C9ED32A4.20700%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Dear all

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

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

Best
Divina 


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

    Basic courtesy stuff.....

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

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

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

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

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

    closing and salutations.....

-- 

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

*Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong*

Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on
the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
_http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress_

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

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

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

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

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





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

dlete "countries" above

and insert "stakeholders"

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



-- 
Cheers,

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

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

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


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



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

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

Parminder

>
>

-- 

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


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

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

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


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



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




>







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

-- 

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/caf2afe3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


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



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

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

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

-- 

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

I thought that including everybody was the point?


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/86be068c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


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

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

<snip>


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

Are we complaining about PS heaviness or G8 government heaviness?

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

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/386767c4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


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

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

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

Will both consultation days be open?

What's the agenda?

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

Any schedule of further consultations during the year?

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

Thanks,

Adam




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

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

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

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


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

Hi,

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

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

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

jeanette

On 08.05.2011 18:11, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In general I support this, though would recommend some edits.  thanks
> for getting the discussion started.
>
> some possible recommendation below.
>
>
> On 8 May 2011, at 04:08, parminder wrote:
>
>> Although there has been no further discussion on the list on this
>> subject, I submit below some text for  a possible IGC statement to
>> the G 8. Please comment and contribute.... parminder
>>
>> (proposed draft starts)
>>
>> Basic courtesy stuff..... We understand that the French Presidency
>> of the G8 proposes to hold a G8 Internet meeting, immediately prior
>> to the G8 Summit in ........,with a view to prepare or influence
>> the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key global Internet issues.
>> We also understand that many heads of states of G 8 countries are
>> expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially
>> important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on
>> many key issues, especially in the information society arena.
>
>> We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet
>> meeting is being organised which flies in the face of all canons of
>> public policy making and public deliberations.
>
> Recommend substituting:
>
> "flies in the face of all canons of public policy making and public
> deliberations"
>
> with something like:
>
> "is ignoring current best practice in public policy making."
>
>> It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholderism that has
>> evolved globally, especially in the area of
>
> Recommend substituting:
>
>> principle of multistakeholderism
>
> with
>
> principle of multistakeholder participation
>
>> Internet governance. The proposed G 8 Internet meeting is being
>> organised by large industry players and the invitations, other than
>> to involved government actors, have also largely gone to big
>> businesses. We hear that invitations to the meeting are also linked
>> to contribution of funds for it.
>
> Recommend substituting with something like:
>
> It appears that the G8 meeting is organized by large Industry with
> access given only to industry and government actors.  We have also
> understood that there is a linkage between donations and
> invitations.
>
>> Big business already have a disproportionately large influence on
>> policy processes for them         to require a dedicated meeting
>> with top G 8 leaders and officials to determine what should be the
>> global agenda for Internet related policies.
>
> Recommend substituting something like:
>
> Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
> government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated
> meeting with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda
> for Internet related policies is inappropriate.
>
>
>> On the contrary, what is required is an audience with public
>> interest actors, or civil society actors, who will bring to the
>> table the real concerns of the people and different sections of the
>> society in this area.
>
> Recommend substituting something like:
>
> What is required is a discussion that includes civil society actors,
> who will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest
> derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society,
> interests and concerns.
>
>
>> We are afraid that the proposed meeting gives industry lobbying a
>> brand new legitimate political image, which         is a dangerous
>> trend for global Internet governance, and in fact, for global
>> governance, in general.
>
>
> Recommend dropping this.
>
>
>> It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
>> essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the
>> most powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global
>> norm. This is most true for architectural and economic issues,
>> while the global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It
>> is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries engage with the same,
>> and other issues, of Internet policies at the more democratic
>> global forums where all countries are present at an equal footing.
>> In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information
>> Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global
>> Internet related issues.
>
>
>> Multistakeholderism is an important part of these global IG related
>> processes.
>
> Again recommend replacing Multistakeholderism with multistakeholder
> participation.
>
>> We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a significant step
>> backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholderism.
>
> Again recommend replacing Multistakeholderism with multistakeholder
> participation.
>
>> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the
>> proposed G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following
>> the model of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support
>> provided by the G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder
>> model for the IGF.
>
>
>> This makes it even more stark and unacceptable that the proposed G
>> 8 meeting be held in the planned manner.
>
> recommend replacing with something like:
>
> The strong support that many of G8 countries, including your own,
> have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current
> decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments'
> industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the
> users of the Internet.
>
>
>> closing and salutations..... (ends) …....
>>
>> …..................
>>
>> On Thursday 05 May 2011 01:58 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:43:18 +0700, Norbert
>>> Klein<nhklein at gmx.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks to Wolfgang for this substantial report of history.
>>>
>>> And thanks to Parminder for drawing the correct conclusion:
>>> Nobody else will do it, speak up and remind those who forget the
>>> history in this case, if Civil Society does not speak up,
>>> reminding the (present representatives of governments) that their
>>> predecessors achieved great things which they seem to forget.
>>>
>>> How is this going to be organized? The major elements are in
>>> Wolfgang's write-up; it has to be mad short, focused on what what
>>> at the UN General Assembly setting the WSIS process on the way as
>>> multi-stakeholder, and the Tunis commitments also BY THE
>>> GOVERNMENTS PRESENT to the multi-stakeholder approach. And add
>>> some achievements since (which?).
>>>
>>> There seems to be agreement that the IGC should respond (and I
>>> concur with this).  I would like to invite Wolfgang or Parminder
>>> to volunteer to write a first draft.  If they do not have time, I
>>> should be able to put something together as a draft based on
>>> their contributions to the list.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International
>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1
>>> Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
>>> Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>
>>> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011,
>>> Hong Kong
>>>
>>> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join
>>> consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and
>>> discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register
>>> now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
>>>
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email
>>> unless necessary.
>>>
>>
>> -- Parminder Jeet Singh Executive Director IT for Change NGO in
>> Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
>> www.ITforChange.net Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890.
>> Fax:+91-80-4146 1055 <itfc_logo.png>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile
>> and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and
> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


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

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

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


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

Ian Peter

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

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

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/0486d06f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon May  9 04:12:44 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 13:42:44 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4DC7A1FC.90405@itforchange.net>


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

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

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

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

Just my views, for whatever they are worth :)

Parminder

> and we urge a more holistic involvement of this wide range of key 
> players.  Only in this way will we be able to develop adequate solutions.
>
> Ian Peter
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> *Organization: *Consumers International
> *Reply-To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> *Date: *Mon, 09 May 2011 12:29:14 +0800
> *To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Avri <avri at acm.org>
> *Subject: *Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
>
>    Thanks Parminder and Avri.  Here's a consolidated draft with Avri's 
> edits.
>
>      Basic courtesy stuff.....
>
>      We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to 
> hold a G8
>      Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in 
> ........,with a view
>      to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding 
> key global
>      Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8
>      countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is 
> especially
>      important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on 
> many key
>      issues, especially in the information society arena.
>
>      We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet 
> meeting is
>      being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public 
> policy making.
>      It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation 
> that has evolved
>      globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It 
> appears that the G8
>      meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to 
> industry and
>      government actors.  We have also understood that there is a 
> linkage between
>      donations and invitations.
>
>      Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
>      government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated 
> meeting
>      with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for 
> Internet related
>      policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that 
> includes civil
>      society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of 
> global public interest
>      derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of 
> society, interests and
>      concerns.
>
>      It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is 
> essentially a
>      global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful 
> nations,
>      quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most 
> true for
>      architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on 
> other areas
>      will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 
> countries
>      engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at 
> the more
>      democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal
>      footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the 
> Information
>      Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing 
> global Internet
>      related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important 
> part of these global
>      IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a 
> significant
>      step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder
>      participation.
>
>      We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the 
> proposed G 8
>      Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model 
> of the UN
>      IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8 
> countries
>      for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong 
> support that
>      many of G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full 
> multistakeholder
>      participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to 
> vested interests
>      of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable 
> to many of
>      the users of the Internet.
>
>      closing and salutations.....
> -- 
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>  Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>  Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala 
> Lumpur, Malaysia
>  Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
>
> *Empowering Tomorrow's Consumers
>  CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong
> *
>
> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer 
> groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on 
> the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
> _
> Read our  email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>
>

-- 

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


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

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon May  9 04:52:37 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 11:52:37 +0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikEDg1hcEwb9m_QBH+AZye23csz0A@mail.gmail.com>

Ian's edit works for me...

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

-- 
Cheers,

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


On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> My only problem with the text is that it tells them what we think they
> should do without telling them why it would be advantageous to do it another
> way. So its not likely to draw a great deal of attention.
>
> To this end I would add another paragraph – perhaps after the “it is also
> pertinent” paragraph, along the lines of
>
>
> The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are
> global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need
> to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of business, civil society
> and technical interests. All of these inputs are essential to any sensible
> and effective developments in this area, and we urge a more holistic
> involvement of this wide range of key players.  Only in this way will we be
> able to develop adequate solutions.
>
> Ian Peter
> ________________________________
> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Organization: Consumers International
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 12:29:14 +0800
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Avri <avri at acm.org>
> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
>
>    Thanks Parminder and Avri.  Here's a consolidated draft with Avri's
> edits.
>
>      Basic courtesy stuff.....
>
>      We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a
> G8
>      Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........,with a
> view
>      to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key
> global
>      Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8
>      countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is
> especially
>      important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many
> key
>      issues, especially in the information society arena.
>
>      We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet
> meeting is
>      being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public
> policy making.
>      It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that
> has evolved
>      globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears
> that the G8
>      meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to
> industry and
>      government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage
> between
>      donations and invitations.
>
>      Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
>      government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated
> meeting
>      with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for
> Internet related
>      policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that
> includes civil
>      society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global
> public interest
>      derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society,
> interests and
>      concerns.
>
>      It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
> essentially a
>      global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful
> nations,
>      quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true
> for
>      architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other
> areas
>      will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8
> countries
>      engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the
> more
>      democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal
>      footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the
> Information
>      Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global
> Internet
>      related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part of
> these global
>      IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a
> significant
>      step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder
>      participation.
>
>      We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G
> 8
>      Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the
> UN
>      IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8
> countries
>      for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong support
> that
>      many of G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full
> multistakeholder
>      participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested
> interests
>      of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to
> many of
>      the users of the Internet.
>
>      closing and salutations.....
> --
>
>
>
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>  Project Coordinator
>  Consumers International
>  Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>  Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
>  Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
>
> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
>  CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong
>
>
> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
> groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the
> issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
>
> Read our  email confidentiality notice
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
> this email unless necessary.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


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

For me as well.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

-- 

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

*Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong*

Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on
the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
_http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress_

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Hi,

I tend to support Parminder.

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

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

a.


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

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

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

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

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


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

Hi,

I tend to support Parminder.

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

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

a.


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

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

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

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

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


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

Hi,

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

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

a.

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

> Ian's edit works for me...
> 
> Perhaps we can get ICC/BASIS to sign on to this statement as well?
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> My only problem with the text is that it tells them what we think they
>> should do without telling them why it would be advantageous to do it another
>> way. So its not likely to draw a great deal of attention.
>> 
>> To this end I would add another paragraph – perhaps after the “it is also
>> pertinent” paragraph, along the lines of
>> 
>> 
>> The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are
>> global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need
>> to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of business, civil society
>> and technical interests. All of these inputs are essential to any sensible
>> and effective developments in this area, and we urge a more holistic
>> involvement of this wide range of key players.  Only in this way will we be
>> able to develop adequate solutions.
>> 
>> Ian Peter
>> ________________________________
>> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>> Organization: Consumers International
>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>> Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 12:29:14 +0800
>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Avri <avri at acm.org>
>> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
>> 
>>    Thanks Parminder and Avri.  Here's a consolidated draft with Avri's
>> edits.
>> 
>>      Basic courtesy stuff.....
>> 
>>      We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a
>> G8
>>      Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........,with a
>> view
>>      to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key
>> global
>>      Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8
>>      countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is
>> especially
>>      important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many
>> key
>>      issues, especially in the information society arena.
>> 
>>      We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet
>> meeting is
>>      being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public
>> policy making.
>>      It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that
>> has evolved
>>      globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears
>> that the G8
>>      meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to
>> industry and
>>      government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage
>> between
>>      donations and invitations.
>> 
>>      Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
>>      government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated
>> meeting
>>      with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for
>> Internet related
>>      policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that
>> includes civil
>>      society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global
>> public interest
>>      derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society,
>> interests and
>>      concerns.
>> 
>>      It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
>> essentially a
>>      global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful
>> nations,
>>      quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true
>> for
>>      architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other
>> areas
>>      will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8
>> countries
>>      engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the
>> more
>>      democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal
>>      footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the
>> Information
>>      Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global
>> Internet
>>      related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part of
>> these global
>>      IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a
>> significant
>>      step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder
>>      participation.
>> 
>>      We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G
>> 8
>>      Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the
>> UN
>>      IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8
>> countries
>>      for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong support
>> that
>>      many of G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full
>> multistakeholder
>>      participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested
>> interests
>>      of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to
>> many of
>>      the users of the Internet.
>> 
>>      closing and salutations.....
>> --
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>>  Project Coordinator
>>  Consumers International
>>  Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>>  Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
>> Malaysia
>>  Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>> 
>> 
>> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
>>  CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong
>> 
>> 
>> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
>> groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the
>> issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
>> 
>> Read our  email confidentiality notice
>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
>> this email unless necessary.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

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

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

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


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

Hi,

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

If anything we might explain IGC.

a.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Hi,

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

If anything we might explain IGC.

a.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Lee 

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

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

Hi,

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

If anything we might explain IGC.

a.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lee


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

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

Hi,

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

If anything we might explain IGC.

a.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Yes, T-shirty slogans can work, something like


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

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

(ends)

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


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

-- 

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


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

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

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


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


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

or 

No -  to  Business control of the Internet.

or 

Stop  military-industrial complex control of the internet.


a.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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




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

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


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

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




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


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

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

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

Just my views, for whatever they are worth :)

Parminder 



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

Ian Peter

  _____  

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

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

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


Empowering Tomorrow's Consumers
 CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong


Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the
issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress

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

 



-- 




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






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

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon May  9 10:42:18 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 07:42:18 -0700
Subject: [governance] The Unwisdom of Elites -NYTimes.com
Message-ID: <0AE2798CFF6B4F2092748BD432C0442A@userPC>

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

 

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

 

    




  _____  

May 8, 2011


The Unwisdom of Elites


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More in Opinion (3 of 18 articles)

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

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

Close




 






__._,_.___

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



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





__,_._,___

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/509ecae3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon May  9 11:39:01 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 18:39:01 +0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <03F23BE5-6C2C-4885-934B-7C79AD855008@ella.com>
References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org> <C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <BANLkTikEDg1hcEwb9m_QBH+AZye23csz0A@mail.gmail.com> <03F23BE5-6C2C-4885-934B-7C79AD855008@ella.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinh4ovrJOQEipfE7ejRF7xRWWLCKw@mail.gmail.com>

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


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


-- 
Cheers,

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

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

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


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

evidently not enough to not play along with Sarkozy

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

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

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

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


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


--
Cheers,

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

I certainly do not think it appropriate to ask them to review the statement and suggest changes.  But certainly after it is sent, we should copy ICC/Basis and if they want to endorse it, then we can be grateful. 

a.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon May  9 16:29:04 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 13:29:04 -0700
Subject: FW: [governance] Re: Greetings from Fiji!
Message-ID: <C3592DA31E4548E1AFEAAD760BC0239D@userPC>


Thanks for this very interesting set of insights Izumi.

One question... It isn't clear to me what role you would see for the various
actors -- the central government, organized NGO's/civil society, community
based/grassroots ICT folks in doing the planning you indicate should have
been done.

This same issue is being discussed on another e-list I follow and
specifically with respect to the devastating tornados in the US South and I
would be interested in your observations/insights specifically concerning
ICT planning.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of Izumi AIZU
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 7:20 PM
To: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Re: Greetings from Fiji!


Dear Sara and all,

Thank you for reminding me of this important subject. We have organized a
"tour" to visit several devastated areas in the past week(s) and just came
back two days ago. A total of more than 20 people took this tour, visited 10
cities. The situation is quite diverse, and in general, recovery works are
slow in small cities in remote and rural areas than cities close to the
central large cities, of course.

But it also appears that those city governments who have better management
skills got faster or more effective recovery and receiving more support from
outside while those who lack these skills also lack sufficient support.

While telco claims that they have recovered most of the land-lines, devils
are in the details. Some city goverment offices are not yet equipped with
PBX, many relief shelters don't have phones for the office (only for
residents), many schools and shelters and other public facilities also do
not have telephone and/or Internet access.

If you have mobile, yes, you have basic connectivity. But that is not same
as having regular fixed lines, broaband service connected to your office
LAN.

The lack of consistent ICT recovery policy by the government is evident,
both local and central. Most are still "patch work" waiting for the requests
to come. Same goes true for industry and some academia. Of course, there are
people who are voluntarily trying to analyze and offer proactive support,
they remain minority.

Both centralized commands and decentralized coordination or systematic
approach are needed, at least in my view, for quick and effective recovery
support, but that is not there yet.

To the credit of those working in the field, I am not criticizing them
directly, but lack or preparedness, organized frameworks, are evident in a
country where vast natural disasters are not foreign. ICT folks should stand
up or wake up at least in Japan if they want to remain in the part of
critical infrastructure for people and society.

izumi


2011/5/8 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
> Dear Izumi,
>
> Greetings from Fiji! How is the recovery work in Japan? What is the
> status of things there? It would be great to know what's happening in 
> Japan in terms of infrastructure, ICT etc? How is the work on the 
> ground?
>
> Our prayers and thoughts are still with your people as you journey to
> rebuild and mitigate the risks.
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> --
> Sala
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Mon May  9 17:03:24 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 18:03:24 -0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <B0657542-F35D-4BDD-AD9A-763BF86EA631@ella.com>
References: <4DC76D9A.2010308@ciroap.org>
	<C9EDD98C.188E9%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<BANLkTikEDg1hcEwb9m_QBH+AZye23csz0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<03F23BE5-6C2C-4885-934B-7C79AD855008@ella.com>
	<BANLkTinh4ovrJOQEipfE7ejRF7xRWWLCKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<B0657542-F35D-4BDD-AD9A-763BF86EA631@ella.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTik2MNPCa6cQLyQh0=6y4GCEJv74sA@mail.gmail.com>

Totally agree with Avri.

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

>
> On 9 May 2011, at 11:39, McTim wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I think it might be sufficient to only include IAN's first sentence.  I
> do not not personally think it is needed, and I think we should be arguing
> for civil society's inclusion at this.
> >>
> >> I see no reason to go to ICC/Basis on this
> >
> >
> > Wouldn't they want to back us up on MSism?
> >
> >
>
>
> They might, and it would be lovely for them to send their own letter
> objecting to civil society's exclusion.  Though I admit I have trouble
> imagining that.
>
> This, on the other hand is not only a plea for multistakeholder model in
> general but a statement of the inappropriateness of including only Business
> and not Civil society.  We should be ready to stand on our own making that
> claim.
>
> I certainly do not think it appropriate to ask them to review the statement
> and suggest changes.  But certainly after it is sent, we should copy
> ICC/Basis and if they want to endorse it, then we can be grateful.
>
> a.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110509/aa9dbb0e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Mon May  9 18:05:54 2011
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 00:05:54 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <517D09AE6832424594C36B3A23166735@userPC>
References: <4DC7A1FC.90405@itforchange.net>
 <517D09AE6832424594C36B3A23166735@userPC>
Message-ID: <20197946.151080.1304978754473.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h12>


Dear list members

Michael Gurstein wrote :

(....)
All of which is to say, the instance that Parminder is pointing to is not isolated and it isn't accidental.   Mike

This is also my opinion. My warmest thanks to Parminder !

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT-France




> Message du 09/05/11 16:14
> De : "Michael Gurstein" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'parminder'" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : RE: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
> 
> Message I would like to support Parminder's comments and overall analysis here.    I think this issue should be put in the larger context of the broad outsourcing of government policy making (this specific example is particularly egregious since it isn't simply "outsourcing" but rather it seems to be putting policy making in these crucial spheres "up for auction").   In the Canadian and I believe other national contexts this "outsourcing of government policy making" is a broad trend which began initially with the destruction of government's internal capacity for research and policy analysis on the basis of "cost-cutting".  When this proved impossible to sustain in complex enviroments there was a broad shift to outsourcing these requirements to private agencies -- mostly privatized think tanks to provide this type of policy research and analysis.  Since these agencies were directly funded by the government of the day their capacity to undertake disinterested (or rather research and policy analysis in the "public interest" or towards the general good) was of course fatally compromised.   Issues of truly massive financial significance and global reach such as those involving the Internet (another example of course is the global financial system) are of particular concern here since what is required are global regulatory and policy making agencies sufficent to respond to the scale and scope of the matters at hand.    In the absence of these (as has been commented on repeatedly in this context in this forum) the need doesn't disappear but the mode of response takes a typical form at this stage of global development i.e. to turn to those "with the greatest stake" -- the private corps to provide the advice and policy direction required. The instrumentalities (including research and policy analysis) which would allow governments individually or collectively to undertake the required policy making simply don't exist nor do most of our current G8 governments want them to exist for ideological reasons.   Guys (and gals) its not that the French government (or the Canadian government in an earlier iteration) "forgot" to invite Civil Society to the table it is that they see no need to bring CS to the table and there are no institutions in most instances either at the naitonal level or at the global level which are structured in such a way as to require this i.e. to support "the public interest".   All of which is to say, the instance that Parminder is pointing to is not isolated and it isn't accidental.   Mike   -----Original Message-----
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:13 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
> 
> 
> On Monday 09 May 2011 01:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: My only problem with the text is that it tells them what we think they should do without telling them why it would be advantageous to do it another way. So its not likely to draw a great deal of attention.
> Thanks for your comments, Ian. In general I have no problem with incorporating your additions, and I will leave it to others to decide on it. However, I must assert, with the risk of looking like trying to take the moral high-ground, that civil society's role is not just to give 'technical' advice to others, about what is good for them or not. Our basic legitimacy is moral and representational... Also it is never clear, to 'whom' is something advantageous or not  - to the French President's own interest, the narrow interests of the French state, of the states of G * together, advantageous to whom?
> 
> So while an instrumental logic can be used to supplement our assertions, they should not be primary, and should in any case be used with great caution. We need to invlvoe all countries and all stakeholders not because it is advantageous to the principal parties being addressed here, (which in nay case they can refute by giving counter logic) but because that is the democratic and right way to do it. Period. That is what we stand for and struggle for. 
> 
> 
> To this end I would add another paragraph – perhaps after the “it is also pertinent” paragraph, along the lines of
> 
> 
> The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of business, civil society and technical interests. All of these inputs are essential to any sensible and effective developments in this area,Begs the question, sensible and effective for whom ?? Some things can be quite sensible and effective to, say large incumbent businesses, or even to narrow economic interests of a particular nation state perched at a particular place in the global digital economy chain or network. that does not diminish our right and effort to seek democratic participation in policy making. Also, I dont like the terminology of 'solutions' as if there are value- and interest- neutral solutions waiting to be found by the right application of expertise in all policy matters. 
> 
> For the same reason, I am not in agreement with one of Avri's edits where the call to adhere to canons or high principles of legitimate policy making is sought to be replace by best practises in policy making. This again suggests expertise and information-richness based policy models, but i think this is much more 'political' than that.
> 
> Just my views, for whatever they are worth :)
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> and we urge a more holistic involvement of this wide range of key players.  Only in this way will we be able to develop adequate solutions.
> 
> Ian Peter
> From: Jeremy Malcolm 
> Organization: Consumers International
> Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm 
> Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 12:29:14 +0800
> To: , Avri 
> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
> 
>    Thanks Parminder and Avri.  Here's a consolidated draft with Avri's edits.
>  
>      Basic courtesy stuff.....
>  
>      We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8
>      Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........,with a view
>      to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key global
>      Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8
>      countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially
>      important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many key
>      issues, especially in the information society arena.
>  
>      We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet meeting is
>      being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public policy making.
>      It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that has evolved
>      globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears that the G8
>      meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to industry and
>      government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage between
>      donations and invitations.
>  
>      Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
>      government bureaucracies. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting
>      with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related
>      policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that includes civil
>      society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest
>      derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society, interests and
>      concerns.
>  
>      It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially a
>      global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations,
>      quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for
>      architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas
>      will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries
>      engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more
>      democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal
>      footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information
>      Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global Internet
>      related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part of these global
>      IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a significant
>      step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder
>      participation.
>  
>      We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G 8
>      Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN
>      IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8 countries
>      for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong support that
>      many of G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder
>      participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests
>      of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of
>      the users of the Internet.
>  
>      closing and salutations..... 
> -- 
>  
>  
> 
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>  Project Coordinator 
>  Consumers International
>  Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>  Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>  Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> 
> 
> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
>  CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong
> 
> 
> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
> 
> Read our  email confidentiality notice  . Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> P { COLOR: rgb(0,0,0) } A:link { } P { COLOR: rgb(0,0,0) } A:link { } 
Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change 
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.net
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/90737692/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/90737692/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue May 10 03:27:08 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:27:08 +0800
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>

Here's another consolidated draft, with all the generally-agreed changes
suggested so far.  As suggested, we'll also have a tweaked version of
this with a catchy headline as a press release, and for translating into
French.

--- begins ---

Basic courtesy stuff.....

We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8
Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........, with a
view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key
global Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of
G 8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is
especially important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda
on many key issues, especially in the information society arena.

We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet meeting
is being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public
policy making. It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder
participation that has evolved globally, especially in the area of
Internet governance. It appears that the G8 meeting is organized by
large Industry with access given only to industry and government
actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage between
donations and invitations.

Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
public policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting
with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet
related policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that
includes civil society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns
of global public interest derived from a diversity of people's, of many
sections of society, interests and
concerns.

It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most
powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm.
This is most true for architectural and economic issues, while the
global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It is therefore
appropriate that G 8 countries engage with the same, and other issues,
of Internet policies at the more democratic global forums where all
countries are present at an equal footing. In this connection, there is
the World Summit on the Information Society mandated set of processes
for dealing with pressing global Internet related issues.
Multistakeholder participation is an important part of these global IG
related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a
significant step backwards both for global democracy and for
multistakeholder participation.

The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments
are global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face
will need to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of business,
civil society and technical interests.

We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G
8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of
the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8
countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong
support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full
multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit
discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners is
baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.

closing and salutations.....

--- ends ---

I'd like to go to a consensus call on this 48 hours from now if possible.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator*
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong*

Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on
the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
_http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/2e09a400/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/2e09a400/attachment.bin>

From divina.meigs at orange.fr  Tue May 10 04:11:07 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:11:07 +0200
Subject: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C445A49F-2847-43B1-84E0-96B73CCA63D8@ella.com>
Message-ID: <C9EEBFBB.207F8%divina.meigs@orange.fr>


I agree with Avri, about IGC. I may have a possibility to publish the
statement in le monde interactive, but i do need a finalized version,
translated... 
Best
divina


Le 09/05/11 13:21, « Avri Doria » <avri at ella.com> a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> I a not sure why we want to explain CPSR, its relation is just as a place that
> host our mailing list.  I do not know how much is left of the organizations
> itself.
> 
> If anything we might explain IGC.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 9 May 2011, at 06:05, Marie GEORGES wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> May I suggest you send the text in the form of  a "regular" press release
>> through Reuters and Agence France Presse. In that case it would be useful to
>> explain in few words what is the CPSR... since when and the different topics
>> it deals with
>> 
>> Best to you
>> Marie
>> Le 9 mai 2011 à 05:56, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
>> 
>>> Dear all
>>> 
>>> I can only confirm what you already know about this meeting. The French
>>> government has a very closed approach to the issue, as can be witnessed by
>>> the recent creation of the "conseil national du numérique", only composed of
>>> business, despite some outcries from different quarters. No
>>> multistakeholderism here.
>>> 
>>> It would be important to translate the statement in French nonetheless and
>>> to send it to La Quadrature du cercle but also to Le Monde interactif and
>>> other online newspapers. Maybe some other French members on this list can
>>> help...  
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> Divina 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Le 09/05/11 03:36, « Izumi AIZU » <iza at anr.org> a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested
>>>> edits
>>>> by Avri.
>>>> 
>>>> From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
>>>> oraganized by
>>>> French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of
>>>> it.
>>>> 
>>>> I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
>>>> to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.
>>>> 
>>>> izumi
>>>> 
>>>> 2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>>>>> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
>>>>> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
>>>>> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
>>>>> to raise.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
>>>>> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
>>>>> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues.  These
>>>>> are from the book, "The Tipping Point".  Thanks Parminder and Avri for
>>>>> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
>>>>> strategy.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
>>>>>> proposed by Avri.
>>>>>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what
>>>>>> CS
>>>>>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
>>>>>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
>>>>>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net.
>>>>>> Does
>>>>>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
>>>>>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Marília
>>>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From marie.georges at noos.fr  Tue May 10 04:31:38 2011
From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:31:38 +0200
Subject: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C9EEBFBB.207F8%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <C9EEBFBB.207F8%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <C570D96B-6077-4FE1-A4A3-CEBFB66647C6@noos.fr>

Hi,
I may have the possibility to pass quickly the statement to those in the French  ministry of foreign affairs in charge of internet governance and concerned by the e forum and the summit,   to the European Commisison and EU Parliament, to EU NGos (EDRI, European ligue des drotis d el'homme)  and in France to  to Quadrature du Net and Ligue des droits de l'homme.; 
Best regards
Marie

Le 10 mai 2011 à 10:11, Divina MEIGS a écrit :

> 
> I agree with Avri, about IGC. I may have a possibility to publish the
> statement in le monde interactive, but i do need a finalized version,
> translated... 
> Best
> divina
> 
> 
> Le 09/05/11 13:21, « Avri Doria » <avri at ella.com> a écrit :
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I a not sure why we want to explain CPSR, its relation is just as a place that
>> host our mailing list.  I do not know how much is left of the organizations
>> itself.
>> 
>> If anything we might explain IGC.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 9 May 2011, at 06:05, Marie GEORGES wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> May I suggest you send the text in the form of  a "regular" press release
>>> through Reuters and Agence France Presse. In that case it would be useful to
>>> explain in few words what is the CPSR... since when and the different topics
>>> it deals with
>>> 
>>> Best to you
>>> Marie
>>> Le 9 mai 2011 à 05:56, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> Dear all
>>>> 
>>>> I can only confirm what you already know about this meeting. The French
>>>> government has a very closed approach to the issue, as can be witnessed by
>>>> the recent creation of the "conseil national du numérique", only composed of
>>>> business, despite some outcries from different quarters. No
>>>> multistakeholderism here.
>>>> 
>>>> It would be important to translate the statement in French nonetheless and
>>>> to send it to La Quadrature du cercle but also to Le Monde interactif and
>>>> other online newspapers. Maybe some other French members on this list can
>>>> help...  
>>>> 
>>>> Best
>>>> Divina 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Le 09/05/11 03:36, « Izumi AIZU » <iza at anr.org> a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested
>>>>> edits
>>>>> by Avri.
>>>>> 
>>>>> From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
>>>>> oraganized by
>>>>> French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of
>>>>> it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
>>>>> to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> izumi
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>>>>>> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
>>>>>> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
>>>>>> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
>>>>>> to raise.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
>>>>>> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
>>>>>> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues.  These
>>>>>> are from the book, "The Tipping Point".  Thanks Parminder and Avri for
>>>>>> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
>>>>>> strategy.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
>>>>>>> proposed by Avri.
>>>>>>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what
>>>>>>> CS
>>>>>>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
>>>>>>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
>>>>>>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net.
>>>>>>> Does
>>>>>>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
>>>>>>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Marília
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>   governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>   governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ocl at gih.com  Tue May 10 04:32:50 2011
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:32:50 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4DC8F832.4040000@gih.com>

Jeremy,

On 10/05/2011 09:27, Jeremy Malcolm wrote :
> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed
> G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model
> of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the
> G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The
> strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown
> for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to
> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners
> is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.

Just a couple of suggestions:

Please give acronym for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
Please make sure of consistency between "G 8" and "G8": choose one or
the other.
Also please define IGF as "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)".

Kind regards,

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue May 10 04:42:51 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:42:51 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC8F832.4040000@gih.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC8F832.4040000@gih.com>
Message-ID: <4DC8FA8B.9010909@wzb.eu>

Hi, since we have such good opportunities to get the statement widely 
circulated, can we please quickly agree on the last version posted by 
Jeremy?

jeanette

On 10.05.2011 10:32, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> Jeremy,
>
> On 10/05/2011 09:27, Jeremy Malcolm wrote :
>> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed
>> G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model
>> of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the
>> G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The
>> strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown
>> for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to
>> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners
>> is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.
>
> Just a couple of suggestions:
>
> Please give acronym for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
> Please make sure of consistency between "G 8" and "G8": choose one or
> the other.
> Also please define IGF as "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)".
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From divina.meigs at orange.fr  Tue May 10 04:46:22 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:46:22 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC8FA8B.9010909@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <C9EEC7FE.20811%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Well done Jeanette!
divina


Le 10/05/11 10:42, « Jeanette Hofmann » <jeanette at wzb.eu> a écrit :

> Hi, since we have such good opportunities to get the statement widely
> circulated, can we please quickly agree on the last version posted by
> Jeremy?
> 
> jeanette
> 
> On 10.05.2011 10:32, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>> Jeremy,
>> 
>> On 10/05/2011 09:27, Jeremy Malcolm wrote :
>>> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed
>>> G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model
>>> of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the
>>> G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The
>>> strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown
>>> for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to
>>> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners
>>> is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.
>> 
>> Just a couple of suggestions:
>> 
>> Please give acronym for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
>> Please make sure of consistency between "G 8" and "G8": choose one or
>> the other.
>> Also please define IGF as "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)".
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Olivier
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it  Tue May 10 04:54:24 2011
From: f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it (Fiorello Cortiana)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:54:24 +0200
Subject: R: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC8F832.4040000@gih.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC8F832.4040000@gih.com>
Message-ID: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E6B8A@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it>

Good suggestions, now we need the statement to share/sand widely

Fiorello 

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Per conto di Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Inviato: martedì 10 maggio 2011 10.33
A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Oggetto: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

Jeremy,

On 10/05/2011 09:27, Jeremy Malcolm wrote :
> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed 
> G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model 
> of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the 
> G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The 
> strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown 
> for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to 
> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners 
> is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.

Just a couple of suggestions:

Please give acronym for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
Please make sure of consistency between "G 8" and "G8": choose one or the other.
Also please define IGF as "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)".

Kind regards,

Olivier

--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue May 10 05:07:40 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:37:40 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>

Jeremy

Can you put civil society before businesses in the phrase ' wide range 
of business, civil society and technical interests'. That is how UN 
documents write it.

Also in the very last sentence I would like the reference to 'internet 
users' to be removed. This policy model is also acceptable to the 
present non-users.

I would prefer that we change the following sentence

"The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have 
shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current 
decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' 
industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users 
of the Internet."

to

"The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have 
shown for full multistakeholder participation in relation to the UN's 
Internet Governance Forum makes this current decision to limit 
discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners  
baffling, and in any case completely unacceptable to us."

parminder

On Tuesday 10 May 2011 12:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Here's another consolidated draft, with all the generally-agreed 
> changes suggested so far.  As suggested, we'll also have a tweaked 
> version of this with a catchy headline as a press release, and for 
> translating into French.
>
> --- begins ---
>
> Basic courtesy stuff.....
>
> We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a 
> G8 Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........, 
> with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit 
> regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that many 
> heads of states of G 8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. 
> The meeting is especially important since in the past G 8 has set up 
> the global agenda on many key issues, especially in the information 
> society arena.
>
> We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet 
> meeting is being organised which is ignoring current best practice in 
> public policy making. It also jettisons the principle of 
> multistakeholder participation that has evolved globally, especially 
> in the area of Internet governance. It appears that the G8 meeting is 
> organized by large Industry with access given only to industry and 
> government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage 
> between donations and invitations.
>
> Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on 
> public policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated 
> meeting with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda 
> for Internet related policies is inappropriate. What is required is a 
> discussion that includes civil society actors, who will bring to the 
> table the concerns of global public interest derived from a diversity 
> of people's, of many sections of society, interests and
> concerns.
>
> It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is 
> essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most 
> powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm. 
> This is most true for architectural and economic issues, while the 
> global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It is therefore 
> appropriate that G 8 countries engage with the same, and other issues, 
> of Internet policies at the more democratic global forums where all 
> countries are present at an equal footing. In this connection, there 
> is the World Summit on the Information Society mandated set of 
> processes for dealing with pressing global Internet related issues. 
> Multistakeholder participation is an important part of these global IG 
> related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a 
> significant step backwards both for global democracy and for 
> multistakeholder participation.
>
> The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments 
> are global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face 
> will need to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of 
> business, civil society and technical interests.
>
> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed 
> G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model 
> of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the 
> G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The 
> strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown 
> for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to 
> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners 
> is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.
>
> closing and salutations.....
>
> --- ends ---
>
> I'd like to go to a consensus call on this 48 hours from now if possible.
>
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong*
>
> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer 
> groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on 
> the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress_
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/10c6860a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/10c6860a/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From avri at acm.org  Tue May 10 07:48:40 2011
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 07:48:40 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>

Hi,

Two issues with the change

-  the us of 'us'.  I think we should say who we are and what interests we are representing.    Perhaps something like .... unacceptable to the IGC, which advocates for cvil society's Internet governance interests.

- does changing from 'unacceptable' to 'completely unacceptable' add anything?  seems to make it somewhat more informal.

a.


On 10 May 2011, at 05:07, parminder wrote:

> Jeremy
> 
> Can you put civil society before businesses in the phrase ' wide range of business, civil society and technical interests'. That is how UN documents write it. 
> 
> Also in the very last sentence I would like the reference to 'internet users' to be removed. This policy model is also acceptable to the present non-users. 
> 
> I would prefer that we change the following sentence
> 
> "The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet."
> 
> to
> 
> "The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation in relation to the UN's Internet Governance Forum makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners  baffling, and in any case completely unacceptable to us."
> 
> parminder 
> 
> On Tuesday 10 May 2011 12:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> Here's another consolidated draft, with all the generally-agreed changes suggested so far.  As suggested, we'll also have a tweaked version of this with a catchy headline as a press release, and for translating into French.
>> 
>> --- begins ---
>> 
>> Basic courtesy stuff.....
>> 
>> We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8 Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........, with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many key issues, especially in the information society arena.
>> 
>> We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet meeting is being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public policy making. It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that has evolved globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears that the G8 meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to industry and government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage between donations and invitations.
>> 
>> Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on public policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that includes civil society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society, interests and
>> concerns.
>> 
>> It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global Internet related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part of these global IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a significant step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder participation.
>> 
>> The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of business, civil society and technical interests.
>> 
>> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.
>> 
>> closing and salutations..... 
>> 
>> --- ends ---
>> 
>> I'd like to go to a consensus call on this 48 hours from now if possible.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>> Project Coordinator 
>> Consumers International
>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>> 
>> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
>> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong
>> 
>> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
>> 
>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change 
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.net
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
> <itfc_logo.png>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue May 10 09:08:17 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 18:38:17 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net>

I agree with these comments... Basically i wanted 'unacceptable to many 
internet users' part removed....

Agree, that 'us' looks unclear.

also thought 'unacceptable to us' looks too light, but yes adding 
'completely' may not be great. maybe another set of words can be used... 
parminder

On Tuesday 10 May 2011 05:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Two issues with the change
>
> -  the us of 'us'.  I think we should say who we are and what interests we are representing.    Perhaps something like .... unacceptable to the IGC, which advocates for cvil society's Internet governance interests.
>
> - does changing from 'unacceptable' to 'completely unacceptable' add anything?  seems to make it somewhat more informal.
>
> a.
>
>
> On 10 May 2011, at 05:07, parminder wrote:
>
>> Jeremy
>>
>> Can you put civil society before businesses in the phrase ' wide range of business, civil society and technical interests'. That is how UN documents write it.
>>
>> Also in the very last sentence I would like the reference to 'internet users' to be removed. This policy model is also acceptable to the present non-users.
>>
>> I would prefer that we change the following sentence
>>
>> "The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet."
>>
>> to
>>
>> "The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation in relation to the UN's Internet Governance Forum makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners  baffling, and in any case completely unacceptable to us."
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Tuesday 10 May 2011 12:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> Here's another consolidated draft, with all the generally-agreed changes suggested so far.  As suggested, we'll also have a tweaked version of this with a catchy headline as a press release, and for translating into French.
>>>
>>> --- begins ---
>>>
>>> Basic courtesy stuff.....
>>>
>>> We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8 Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........, with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many key issues, especially in the information society arena.
>>>
>>> We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet meeting is being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public policy making. It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that has evolved globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears that the G8 meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to industry and government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage between donations and invitations.
>>>
>>> Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on public policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that includes civil society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society, interests and
>>> concerns.
>>>
>>> It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global Internet related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part of these global IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a significant step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder participation.
>>>
>>> The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of business, civil society and technical interests.
>>>
>>> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.
>>>
>>> closing and salutations.....
>>>
>>> --- ends ---
>>>
>>> I'd like to go to a consensus call on this 48 hours from now if possible.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Project Coordinator
>>> Consumers International
>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>
>>> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
>>> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong
>>>
>>> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
>>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
>>>
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>
>> -- 
>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>> Executive Director
>> IT for Change
>> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
>> www.ITforChange.net
>> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
>> <itfc_logo.png>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/acec8061/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/acec8061/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue May 10 09:15:52 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:15:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>

Can we perhaps set a deadline?

jeanette

Am 10.05.2011 15:08, schrieb parminder:
> I agree with these comments... Basically i wanted 'unacceptable to many
> internet users' part removed....
>
> Agree, that 'us' looks unclear.
>
> also thought 'unacceptable to us' looks too light, but yes adding
> 'completely' may not be great. maybe another set of words can be used...
> parminder
>
> On Tuesday 10 May 2011 05:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Two issues with the change
>>
>> -  the us of'us'.  I think we should say who we are and what interests we are representing.    Perhaps something like .... unacceptable to the IGC, which advocates for cvil society's Internet governance interests.
>>
>> - does changing from'unacceptable'  to'completely unacceptable'  add anything?  seems to make it somewhat more informal.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>> On 10 May 2011, at 05:07, parminder wrote:
>>
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>> Can you put civil society before businesses in the phrase'  wide range of business, civil society and technical interests'. That is how UN documents write it.
>>>
>>> Also in the very last sentence I would like the reference to'internet users'  to be removed. This policy model is also acceptable to the present non-users.
>>>
>>> I would prefer that we change the following sentence
>>>
>>> "The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments'  industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet."
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>> "The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation in relation to the UN's Internet Governance Forum makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments'  industry partners  baffling, and in any case completely unacceptable to us."
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 10 May 2011 12:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>> Here's another consolidated draft, with all the generally-agreed changes suggested so far.  As suggested, we'll also have a tweaked version of this with a catchy headline as a press release, and for translating into French.
>>>>
>>>> --- begins ---
>>>>
>>>> Basic courtesy stuff.....
>>>>
>>>> We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8 Internet meeting, immediately prior to the G8 Summit in ........, with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of states of G 8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is especially important since in the past G 8 has set up the global agenda on many key issues, especially in the information society arena.
>>>>
>>>> We are very concerned about the manner in which the G 8 Internet meeting is being organised which is ignoring current best practice in public policy making. It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that has evolved globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears that the G8 meeting is organized by large Industry with access given only to industry and government actors.  We have also understood that there is a linkage between donations and invitations.
>>>>
>>>> Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on public policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that includes civil society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society, interests and
>>>> concerns.
>>>>
>>>> It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G 8 countries engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information Society mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global Internet related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part of these global IG related processes. We see the proposed G 8 Interent meeting a significant step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder participation.
>>>>
>>>> The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of business, civil society and technical interests.
>>>>
>>>> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments'  industry partners is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.
>>>>
>>>> closing and salutations.....
>>>>
>>>> --- ends ---
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to go to a consensus call on this 48 hours from now if possible.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>>>> Project Coordinator
>>>> Consumers International
>>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>>
>>>> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
>>>> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong
>>>>
>>>> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
>>>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
>>>>
>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>>> Executive Director
>>> IT for Change
>>> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
>>> www.ITforChange.net  <http://www.ITforChange.net>
>>> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
>>> <itfc_logo.png>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org  <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org  <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Executive Director
> IT for Change
> NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
> Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Tue May 10 09:20:33 2011
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:20:33 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C9EEBFBB.207F8%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <C445A49F-2847-43B1-84E0-96B73CCA63D8@ella.com>
 <C9EEBFBB.207F8%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <30302980.13926.1305033633512.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e22>

Maybe I can be helpful for sending the statement (final release) to a journalist from Le Monde with whom I use to exchange on Telecom/ITC matters.

Please let me know 

friendliest greetings

Jean-Louis Fulklsack
CSDPTT- France




> Message du 10/05/11 10:11
> De : "Divina MEIGS" 
> A : "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "Avri Doria" 
> Copie à : "Jeanette Hofmann" , "CW Mail" 
> Objet : Re: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
> 
> 
> I agree with Avri, about IGC. I may have a possibility to publish the
> statement in le monde interactive, but i do need a finalized version,
> translated... 
> Best
> divina
> 
> 
> Le 09/05/11 13:21, « Avri Doria » a écrit :
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I a not sure why we want to explain CPSR, its relation is just as a place that
> > host our mailing list. I do not know how much is left of the organizations
> > itself.
> > 
> > If anything we might explain IGC.
> > 
> > a.
> > 
> > On 9 May 2011, at 06:05, Marie GEORGES wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> Dear all,
> >> May I suggest you send the text in the form of a "regular" press release
> >> through Reuters and Agence France Presse. In that case it would be useful to
> >> explain in few words what is the CPSR... since when and the different topics
> >> it deals with
> >> 
> >> Best to you
> >> Marie
> >> Le 9 mai 2011 à 05:56, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
> >> 
> >>> Dear all
> >>> 
> >>> I can only confirm what you already know about this meeting. The French
> >>> government has a very closed approach to the issue, as can be witnessed by
> >>> the recent creation of the "conseil national du numérique", only composed of
> >>> business, despite some outcries from different quarters. No
> >>> multistakeholderism here.
> >>> 
> >>> It would be important to translate the statement in French nonetheless and
> >>> to send it to La Quadrature du cercle but also to Le Monde interactif and
> >>> other online newspapers. Maybe some other French members on this list can
> >>> help... 
> >>> 
> >>> Best
> >>> Divina 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Le 09/05/11 03:36, « Izumi AIZU » a écrit :
> >>> 
> >>>> I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested
> >>>> edits
> >>>> by Avri.
> >>>> 
> >>>> From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
> >>>> oraganized by
> >>>> French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of
> >>>> it.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
> >>>> to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.
> >>>> 
> >>>> izumi
> >>>> 
> >>>> 2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >>>> :
> >>>>> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
> >>>>> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
> >>>>> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
> >>>>> to raise.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
> >>>>> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
> >>>>> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues. These
> >>>>> are from the book, "The Tipping Point". Thanks Parminder and Avri for
> >>>>> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
> >>>>> strategy.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel 
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
> >>>>>> proposed by Avri.
> >>>>>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what
> >>>>>> CS
> >>>>>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
> >>>>>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
> >>>>>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net.
> >>>>>> Does
> >>>>>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing? If we manage to be
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
> >>>>>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> Marília
> >>>>>> 
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>> 
> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>> 
> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>> 
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>> 
> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >> 
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >> 
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > 
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > 
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/1b280491/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From katitza at eff.org  Tue May 10 09:23:05 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (katitza at eff.org)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 13:23:05 +0000
Subject: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C570D96B-6077-4FE1-A4A3-CEBFB66647C6@noos.fr>
References: <C9EEBFBB.207F8%divina.meigs@orange.fr><C570D96B-6077-4FE1-A4A3-CEBFB66647C6@noos.fr>
Message-ID: <314600039-1305033785-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-381046854-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Nice to see you in this list Marie. We are lucky to have you here. ! Un abrazo, Katitza 

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Marie GEORGES <marie.georges at noos.fr>
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:31:38 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Divina MEIGS<divina.meigs at orange.fr>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marie GEORGES <marie.georges at noos.fr>
Cc: Avri Doria<avri at ella.com>; Jeanette Hofmann<jeanette at wzb.eu>; CW Mail<mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>
Subject: Re: dissemination /G8 Re: [governance] Re: Internet G8 meeting

Hi,
I may have the possibility to pass quickly the statement to those in the French  ministry of foreign affairs in charge of internet governance and concerned by the e forum and the summit,   to the European Commisison and EU Parliament, to EU NGos (EDRI, European ligue des drotis d el'homme)  and in France to  to Quadrature du Net and Ligue des droits de l'homme.; 
Best regards
Marie

Le 10 mai 2011 à 10:11, Divina MEIGS a écrit :

> 
> I agree with Avri, about IGC. I may have a possibility to publish the
> statement in le monde interactive, but i do need a finalized version,
> translated... 
> Best
> divina
> 
> 
> Le 09/05/11 13:21, « Avri Doria » <avri at ella.com> a écrit :
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I a not sure why we want to explain CPSR, its relation is just as a place that
>> host our mailing list.  I do not know how much is left of the organizations
>> itself.
>> 
>> If anything we might explain IGC.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 9 May 2011, at 06:05, Marie GEORGES wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> May I suggest you send the text in the form of  a "regular" press release
>>> through Reuters and Agence France Presse. In that case it would be useful to
>>> explain in few words what is the CPSR... since when and the different topics
>>> it deals with
>>> 
>>> Best to you
>>> Marie
>>> Le 9 mai 2011 à 05:56, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> Dear all
>>>> 
>>>> I can only confirm what you already know about this meeting. The French
>>>> government has a very closed approach to the issue, as can be witnessed by
>>>> the recent creation of the "conseil national du numérique", only composed of
>>>> business, despite some outcries from different quarters. No
>>>> multistakeholderism here.
>>>> 
>>>> It would be important to translate the statement in French nonetheless and
>>>> to send it to La Quadrature du cercle but also to Le Monde interactif and
>>>> other online newspapers. Maybe some other French members on this list can
>>>> help...  
>>>> 
>>>> Best
>>>> Divina 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Le 09/05/11 03:36, « Izumi AIZU » <iza at anr.org> a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> I, too, agree with the text and tone proposed by Parminder and suggested
>>>>> edits
>>>>> by Avri.
>>>>> 
>>>>> From what I learned so far is that this meeting is almost discretely
>>>>> oraganized by
>>>>> French presidency, and other governments do not have good understanding of
>>>>> it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think there is merit to make our statement public asap and send heads-up
>>>>> to G8 and other government members participating in WSIS/IGF processes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> izumi
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2011/5/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>>>>>> If there are people within the G8 who have been part of the IGF
>>>>>> process and are proponents of multistakeholder approach to
>>>>>> development. It may be strategic as well to give them our perspectives
>>>>>> to raise.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The 6 degree connection has been shortened through ICT/
>>>>>> globalisation/networking etc. I am sure we can identify an ICT/ or IGF
>>>>>> maven, a connector and a "salesperson" who can take the issues.  These
>>>>>> are from the book, "The Tipping Point".  Thanks Parminder and Avri for
>>>>>> the drafts and comments, I have nothing to add to the draft but to the
>>>>>> strategy.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I agree with the statement drafted by Parminder and with the suggestions
>>>>>>> proposed by Avri.
>>>>>>> Once we have sent it, it will be fundamental to find ways to disseminate
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> message as widely as possible. G8 governments could not care less to what
>>>>>>> CS
>>>>>>> has to say, unless we manage to make some noise and to leave them in an
>>>>>>> awkward position. It would be particularly interesting to mobilize French
>>>>>>> bloggers. I have the contacts of some people in La Quadrature du Net.
>>>>>>> Does
>>>>>>> anyone has contacts in Arstechnica and Boing-boing?  If we manage to be
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> these sites, the news may spread virally online.
>>>>>>> What about more "traditional" online channels any ideas?
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Marília
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>   governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>   governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> 
>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue May 10 10:49:24 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 07:49:24 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
Message-ID: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC>

(further to my earlier post)

Note: today's announcement that MS is in the process of buying skype

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-10/microsoft-said-to-be-negotiating-pu
rchase-of-internet-call-provider-skype.html

Should be seen alongside: 

> In the run up to the (Royal) wedding, facebook decided to delete 50
profiles 
> of British anti cuts protest groups. Seems like they have been 
> coordinating this with the police. Scary precedent.
> 
> Join the protest against it... on facebook
 <...>

Various ICT functionalities have proven their value and global significance
to the point of essentially becoming part of a global "public"
infrastructure on which a variety of other public (and other)
functionalities are built (what would global civil society have looked like
over the last half dozen years in the absence of skype for example).  What
has emerged, I think, alongside this is a global public interest in these
functionalities. 

What has not evolved apace is the global capacity to intervene with these
functionalities to regulate and protect the global public interest/public
goods.

I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG discussions but
even from a purely self-interested CS perspective there is an absolute need
to begin to work towards some sort of global institutional/regulatory
framework to ensure the preservation of a public interest in a global
virtual public space and public capacity for very low cost IP enabled
international communications (a la skype).

Mike


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue May 10 11:29:40 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 20:59:40 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
In-Reply-To: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC>
References: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC>
Message-ID: <4DC959E4.8010900@itforchange.net>

What Mike is pointing to is the real IG issue that we should be very 
concerned about.

The news of Facebook censoring anti-cut protests in UK is rather scary. 
Our digital Tahrir squares are private spaces, where the private owners 
(and their friendly interests) dont have to send in armies to remove 
people whose protests they dont sympathise with. parminder

On Tuesday 10 May 2011 08:19 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> (further to my earlier post)
>
> Note: today's announcement that MS is in the process of buying skype
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-10/microsoft-said-to-be-negotiating-pu
> rchase-of-internet-call-provider-skype.html
>
> Should be seen alongside:
>
>> In the run up to the (Royal) wedding, facebook decided to delete 50
> profiles
>> of British anti cuts protest groups. Seems like they have been
>> coordinating this with the police. Scary precedent.
>>
>> Join the protest against it... on facebook
>   <...>
>
> Various ICT functionalities have proven their value and global significance
> to the point of essentially becoming part of a global "public"
> infrastructure on which a variety of other public (and other)
> functionalities are built (what would global civil society have looked like
> over the last half dozen years in the absence of skype for example).  What
> has emerged, I think, alongside this is a global public interest in these
> functionalities.
>
> What has not evolved apace is the global capacity to intervene with these
> functionalities to regulate and protect the global public interest/public
> goods.
>
> I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG discussions but
> even from a purely self-interested CS perspective there is an absolute need
> to begin to work towards some sort of global institutional/regulatory
> framework to ensure the preservation of a public interest in a global
> virtual public space and public capacity for very low cost IP enabled
> international communications (a la skype).
>
> Mike
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/79b36fb7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110510/79b36fb7/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue May 10 15:47:29 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:47:29 +0200
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
 <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
 <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
 <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
 <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
 <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu>
 <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC8F832.4040000@gih.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Probably it would be good directly to quite from the Tunis Agenda.
 
w 

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Gesendet: Di 10.05.2011 10:32
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting



Jeremy,

On 10/05/2011 09:27, Jeremy Malcolm wrote :
> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed
> G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model
> of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the
> G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The
> strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown
> for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to
> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners
> is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.

Just a couple of suggestions:

Please give acronym for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
Please make sure of consistency between "G 8" and "G8": choose one or
the other.
Also please define IGF as "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)".

Kind regards,

Olivier

--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lorena.jaume-palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de  Tue May 10 15:54:13 2011
From: lorena.jaume-palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (=?utf-8?B?TG9yZW5hIEphdW1lLVBhbGFzw60=?=)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 19:54:13 +0000
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net><Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com><93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu><4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net><20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch><4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net><c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost><4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net><F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu><4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
  <4DC8F832.4040000@gih.com><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <1651926040-1305057247-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1174545454-@b28.c15.bise7.blackberry>

Wolfgang, bin unterwegs nach hause, in 10 min koennte ich dich uebers festnetz anrufen. Dauert nicht lange. Was mwinst du? VG, lorena
Von meinem drahtlosen BlackBerry®-Handheld gesendet

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
 <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:47:29 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<ocl at gih.com>; <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Jeremy Malcolm<jeremy at ciroap.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,
          "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
 <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

Probably it would be good directly to quite from the Tunis Agenda.
 
w 

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Gesendet: Di 10.05.2011 10:32
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting



Jeremy,

On 10/05/2011 09:27, Jeremy Malcolm wrote :
> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed
> G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model
> of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the
> G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The
> strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown
> for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to
> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners
> is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.

Just a couple of suggestions:

Please give acronym for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
Please make sure of consistency between "G 8" and "G8": choose one or
the other.
Also please define IGF as "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)".

Kind regards,

Olivier

--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lorena.jaume-palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de  Tue May 10 15:57:44 2011
From: lorena.jaume-palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (=?utf-8?B?TG9yZW5hIEphdW1lLVBhbGFzw60=?=)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 19:57:44 +0000
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net><Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com><93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu><4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net><20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch><4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net><c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost><4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net><F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu><4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
  <4DC8F832.4040000@gih.com><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <1014681370-1305057457-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1937373862-@b28.c15.bise7.blackberry>

Dear list I beg your pardon. The German Email was not meant for the list.  Regards, Lorena Jaume
Von meinem drahtlosen BlackBerry®-Handheld gesendet

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
 <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:47:29 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<ocl at gih.com>; <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Jeremy Malcolm<jeremy at ciroap.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,
          "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
 <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

Probably it would be good directly to quite from the Tunis Agenda.
 
w 

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Gesendet: Di 10.05.2011 10:32
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Internet G8 meeting



Jeremy,

On 10/05/2011 09:27, Jeremy Malcolm wrote :
> We therefore request you, and other G 8 leaders, to make the proposed
> G 8 Internet meeting genuinely multistakeholder, following the model
> of the UN IGF. We are impressed with the solid support provided by the
> G 8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The
> strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown
> for full multistakeholder participation makes this current decision to
> limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry partners
> is baffling and is unacceptable to many of the users of the Internet.

Just a couple of suggestions:

Please give acronym for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
Please make sure of consistency between "G 8" and "G8": choose one or
the other.
Also please define IGF as "Internet Governance Forum (IGF)".

Kind regards,

Olivier

--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Tue May 10 15:55:07 2011
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:55:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
In-Reply-To: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC>
References: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC>
Message-ID: <20110510195507.GA28533@sources.org>

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:49:24AM -0700,
 Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 51 lines which said:

> I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG
> discussions but even from a purely self-interested CS perspective
> there is an absolute need to begin to work towards some sort of
> global institutional/regulatory framework to ensure the preservation
> of a public interest in a global virtual public space and public
> capacity for very low cost IP enabled international communications
> (a la skype).

I fail to see why the fate of the private company Skype, which
produces a closed software using undocumented proprietary protocols
could be a subject for CS.

I agree that "preservation of a public interest in a global virtual
public space" and "very low cost IP enabled international
communications" are good goals. But Skype is the very counter-example
of what we should aim for. Specially, the fact that the source code is
hidden from its users is there to hide shameful practices such as
enrolling users as "supernodes" without asking their advice or even
informing them (see
<http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.html>
and the list in
<http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>).

So, if CS is interested in "preservation of a public interest in a
global virtual public space", it should push the use of open protocols
for instant messaging and voice over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to
encourage closed software.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue May 10 16:11:02 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 22:11:02 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
References: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC>
 <20110510195507.GA28533@sources.org>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Thanks Stephane
1+ and full support. 
 
w

 
________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Stephane Bortzmeyer
Gesendet: Di 10.05.2011 21:55
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
Betreff: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?



On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:49:24AM -0700,
 Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote
 a message of 51 lines which said:

> I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG
> discussions but even from a purely self-interested CS perspective
> there is an absolute need to begin to work towards some sort of
> global institutional/regulatory framework to ensure the preservation
> of a public interest in a global virtual public space and public
> capacity for very low cost IP enabled international communications
> (a la skype).

I fail to see why the fate of the private company Skype, which
produces a closed software using undocumented proprietary protocols
could be a subject for CS.

I agree that "preservation of a public interest in a global virtual
public space" and "very low cost IP enabled international
communications" are good goals. But Skype is the very counter-example
of what we should aim for. Specially, the fact that the source code is
hidden from its users is there to hide shameful practices such as
enrolling users as "supernodes" without asking their advice or even
informing them (see
<http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.html>
and the list in
<http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>).

So, if CS is interested in "preservation of a public interest in a
global virtual public space", it should push the use of open protocols
for instant messaging and voice over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to
encourage closed software.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From avri at psg.com  Tue May 10 16:30:27 2011
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 16:30:27 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC> <20110510195507.GA28533@sources.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <8E4617D2-5AEA-4BB3-B8BF-4E3BE92F90D7@psg.com>


besides, becasue of the security hole for OSX, it isn't even usable anymore on MAC.
let Microsoft have it.
lets use Jabber instead.

(does google talk use SIP?)

a.


On 10 May 2011, at 16:11, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> Thanks Stephane
> 1+ and full support. 
> 
> w
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Stephane Bortzmeyer
> Gesendet: Di 10.05.2011 21:55
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
> Betreff: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:49:24AM -0700,
> Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote
> a message of 51 lines which said:
> 
>> I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG
>> discussions but even from a purely self-interested CS perspective
>> there is an absolute need to begin to work towards some sort of
>> global institutional/regulatory framework to ensure the preservation
>> of a public interest in a global virtual public space and public
>> capacity for very low cost IP enabled international communications
>> (a la skype).
> 
> I fail to see why the fate of the private company Skype, which
> produces a closed software using undocumented proprietary protocols
> could be a subject for CS.
> 
> I agree that "preservation of a public interest in a global virtual
> public space" and "very low cost IP enabled international
> communications" are good goals. But Skype is the very counter-example
> of what we should aim for. Specially, the fact that the source code is
> hidden from its users is there to hide shameful practices such as
> enrolling users as "supernodes" without asking their advice or even
> informing them (see
> <http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.html>
> and the list in
> <http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>).
> 
> So, if CS is interested in "preservation of a public interest in a
> global virtual public space", it should push the use of open protocols
> for instant messaging and voice over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to
> encourage closed software.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ca at cafonso.ca  Tue May 10 16:51:11 2011
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 17:51:11 -0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC> <20110510195507.GA28533@sources.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <4DC9A53F.6050807@cafonso.ca>

Thx, Steph. +1 as well.

--c.a.

On 05/10/2011 05:11 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Thanks Stephane
> 1+ and full support. 
>  
> w
> 
>  
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Stephane Bortzmeyer
> Gesendet: Di 10.05.2011 21:55
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
> Betreff: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:49:24AM -0700,
>  Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote
>  a message of 51 lines which said:
> 
>> I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG
>> discussions but even from a purely self-interested CS perspective
>> there is an absolute need to begin to work towards some sort of
>> global institutional/regulatory framework to ensure the preservation
>> of a public interest in a global virtual public space and public
>> capacity for very low cost IP enabled international communications
>> (a la skype).
> 
> I fail to see why the fate of the private company Skype, which
> produces a closed software using undocumented proprietary protocols
> could be a subject for CS.
> 
> I agree that "preservation of a public interest in a global virtual
> public space" and "very low cost IP enabled international
> communications" are good goals. But Skype is the very counter-example
> of what we should aim for. Specially, the fact that the source code is
> hidden from its users is there to hide shameful practices such as
> enrolling users as "supernodes" without asking their advice or even
> informing them (see
> <http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.html>
> and the list in
> <http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>).
> 
> So, if CS is interested in "preservation of a public interest in a
> global virtual public space", it should push the use of open protocols
> for instant messaging and voice over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to
> encourage closed software.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue May 10 18:02:05 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:02:05 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
In-Reply-To: <20110510195507.GA28533@sources.org>
Message-ID: <B190998FCDA148A38CEF2E233FE4D4A7@userPC>

So is "push(ing) the use of open protocols for instant messaging and voice
over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to encourage closed software" sufficient
to ensure a universal accessability of "very low cost IP enabled
international communications"?

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:55 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
Subject: Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?


On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:49:24AM -0700,
 Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 51 lines which said:

> I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG 
> discussions but even from a purely self-interested CS perspective 
> there is an absolute need to begin to work towards some sort of global 
> institutional/regulatory framework to ensure the preservation of a 
> public interest in a global virtual public space and public capacity 
> for very low cost IP enabled international communications (a la 
> skype).

I fail to see why the fate of the private company Skype, which produces a
closed software using undocumented proprietary protocols could be a subject
for CS.

I agree that "preservation of a public interest in a global virtual public
space" and "very low cost IP enabled international communications" are good
goals. But Skype is the very counter-example of what we should aim for.
Specially, the fact that the source code is hidden from its users is there
to hide shameful practices such as enrolling users as "supernodes" without
asking their advice or even informing them (see
<http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.h
tml>
and the list in <http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>).

So, if CS is interested in "preservation of a public interest in a global
virtual public space", it should push the use of open protocols for instant
messaging and voice over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to encourage closed
software.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed May 11 00:45:42 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 13:45:42 +0900
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
In-Reply-To: <8E4617D2-5AEA-4BB3-B8BF-4E3BE92F90D7@psg.com>
References: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC>
 <20110510195507.GA28533@sources.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF7D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <8E4617D2-5AEA-4BB3-B8BF-4E3BE92F90D7@psg.com>
Message-ID: <p06240803c9efad28ac0e@[192.168.1.160]>

>besides, becasue of the security hole for OSX, 
>it isn't even usable anymore on MAC.


does this fix?

<http://blogs.skype.com/garage/2011/05/2nd_hotfix_for_skype_51_for_ma_release_notes.html>

Adam



>let Microsoft have it.
>lets use Jabber instead.
>
>(does google talk use SIP?)
>
>a.
>
>
>On 10 May 2011, at 16:11, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>
>>  Thanks Stephane
>>  1+ and full support.
>>
>>  w
>>
>>
>>  ________________________________
>>
>>  Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Stephane Bortzmeyer
>>  Gesendet: Di 10.05.2011 21:55
>>  An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
>>  Betreff: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:49:24AM -0700,
>>  Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote
>>  a message of 51 lines which said:
>>
>>>  I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG
>>>  discussions but even from a purely self-interested CS perspective
>>>  there is an absolute need to begin to work towards some sort of
>>>  global institutional/regulatory framework to ensure the preservation
>>>  of a public interest in a global virtual public space and public
>>>  capacity for very low cost IP enabled international communications
>>>  (a la skype).
>>
>>  I fail to see why the fate of the private company Skype, which
>>  produces a closed software using undocumented proprietary protocols
>>  could be a subject for CS.
>>
>>  I agree that "preservation of a public interest in a global virtual
>>  public space" and "very low cost IP enabled international
>>  communications" are good goals. But Skype is the very counter-example
>>  of what we should aim for. Specially, the fact that the source code is
>>  hidden from its users is there to hide shameful practices such as
>>  enrolling users as "supernodes" without asking their advice or even
>>  informing them (see
>> 
>><http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.html>
>>  and the list in
>>  <http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>).
>>
>>  So, if CS is interested in "preservation of a public interest in a
>>  global virtual public space", it should push the use of open protocols
>>  for instant messaging and voice over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to
>>  encourage closed software.
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>  For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>  To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>  For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>  To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed May 11 00:55:58 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 10:25:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
In-Reply-To: <20110510195507.GA28533@sources.org>
References: <5E4D1324A2AA47AE9A49F853188F2C91@userPC> <20110510195507.GA28533@sources.org>
Message-ID: <4DCA16DE.9010600@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 11 May 2011 01:25 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:49:24AM -0700,
>   Michael Gurstein<gurstein at gmail.com>  wrote
>   a message of 51 lines which said:
>
>> I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG
>> discussions but even from a purely self-interested CS perspective
>> there is an absolute need to begin to work towards some sort of
>> global institutional/regulatory framework to ensure the preservation
>> of a public interest in a global virtual public space and public
>> capacity for very low cost IP enabled international communications
>> (a la skype).
> I fail to see why the fate of the private company Skype, which
> produces a closed software using undocumented proprietary protocols
> could be a subject for CS.

In the same way as Google of the closed algorithm is difficult to ignore 
as a subject by civil society. Is there anyone here who doesnt use 
google? Would MS and Google merging be not a big issue for all us?
> I agree that "preservation of a public interest in a global virtual
> public space" and "very low cost IP enabled international
> communications" are good goals. But Skype is the very counter-example
> of what we should aim for.
I agree that is the point. But what do you think we should aim for. Not 
only as our IP based communication system, but also as our search 
engine, and our social networking site,  as out payment gateway ......

The solution lies both in encouraging alternative practises, models and 
software/ applications, but as much in right regulatory frameworks. It 
would never to be possible to get what we seek without the later. That 
for me is one of the biggest IG issue around today. parminder


> Specially, the fact that the source code is
> hidden from its users is there to hide shameful practices such as
> enrolling users as "supernodes" without asking their advice or even
> informing them (see
> <http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.html>
> and the list in
> <http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>).
>
> So, if CS is interested in "preservation of a public interest in a
> global virtual public space", it should push the use of open protocols
> for instant messaging and voice over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to
> encourage closed software.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/908f3178/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/908f3178/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed May 11 03:13:45 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:13:45 +0800
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>

On 10/05/11 21:15, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Can we perhaps set a deadline?

Yes, I'm going to put it to consensus call in the form below
(incorporating the latest minor points).  Expect a poll invitation
soon.  For the press release, we'll basically just lose the "Basic
courtesy stuff" at the start and the "closing and salutations" at the
end, and add a heading such as "Civil society censures French plan for
closed meeting on Internet's future".

Dear President Sarkozy,

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is an open forum of
individual and organisational civil society actors who came together in
the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to
promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy
making (see http://www.igcaucus.org).

We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8
Internet meeting - the "eG8 Forum" - immediately prior to the G8 Summit
in Deauville, with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8
Summit regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that
many heads of states of G8 countries are expected to attend this
meeting. The meeting is especially important since in the past G8 has
set up the global agenda on many key issues, especially in the
information society arena.

We are very concerned about the manner in which the eG8 Forum is being
organised which is ignoring current best practice in public policy
making. It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder
participation that has evolved globally, especially in the area of
Internet governance. It appears that the eG8 Forum is organized by large
Industry with access given only to industry and government actors.  We
have also understood that there is a linkage between donations and
invitations.

Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on
public policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting
with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet
related policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that
includes civil society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns
of global public interest derived from a diversity of people's, of many
sections of society, interests and concerns.

It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is
essentially a global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most
powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm.
This is most true for architectural and economic issues, while the
global impact on other areas will also be substantial. It is therefore
appropriate that G8 countries engage with the same, and other issues, of
Internet policies at the more democratic global forums where all
countries are present at an equal footing. In this connection, there is
the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) mandated set of
processes for dealing with pressing global Internet related issues.
Multistakeholder participation is an important part of these global IG
related processes. We see the eG8 Forum as a significant step backwards
both for global democracy and for multistakeholder participation.

The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments
are global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face
will need to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of civil
society, business and technical interests.

We therefore request you, and other G8 leaders, to make the eG8 Forum
genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN Internet
Governance Forum (IGF). We are impressed with the solid support provided
by the G8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF.
The strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have
shown for full multistakeholder participation in relation to the IGF
makes this current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of
governments' industry partners is baffling, and unacceptable to the IGC,
which advocates for civil society's Internet governance interests.

Yours sincerely,
Jeremy Malcolm and Izumi Aizu
Coordinators
Internet Governance Caucus

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator*
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong*

Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on
the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
_http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/07d2ba6f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/07d2ba6f/attachment.bin>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed May 11 03:25:34 2011
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:25:34 +1000
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <C9F0770E.189FA%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Looks great!

Very small grammatical issue ­ in last sentence drop word ³is² before
baffling (easiest solution) or otherwise rewrite the sentence.


Ian 

From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Organization: Consumers International
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:13:45 +0800
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
Subject: Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

   On 10/05/11 21:15, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Can we perhaps set a deadline?
>  
 
 Yes, I'm going to put it to consensus call in the form below (incorporating
the latest minor points).  Expect a poll invitation soon.  For the press
release, we'll basically just lose the "Basic courtesy stuff" at the start
and the "closing and salutations" at the end, and add a heading such as
"Civil society censures French plan for closed meeting on Internet's
future".
 
 Dear President Sarkozy,
 
 The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is an open forum of
individual and organisational civil society actors who came together in the
context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote
global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making (see
http://www.igcaucus.org).
 
 We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8
Internet meeting - the "eG8 Forum" - immediately prior to the G8 Summit in
Deauville, with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit
regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of
states of G8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is
especially important since in the past G8 has set up the global agenda on
many key issues, especially in the information society arena.
 
 We are very concerned about the manner in which the eG8 Forum is being
organised which is ignoring current best practice in public policy making.
It also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that has
evolved globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears
that the eG8 Forum is organized by large Industry with access given only to
industry and government actors.  We have also understood that there is a
linkage between donations and invitations.
 
 Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on public
policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting with top
G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related
policies is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that includes
civil society actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global
public interest derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of
society, interests and concerns.
 
 It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially a
global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations,
quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for
architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas
will also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G8 countries
engage with the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more
democratic global forums where all countries are present at an equal
footing. In this connection, there is the World Summit on the Information
Society (WSIS) mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global
Internet related issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part
of these global IG related processes. We see the eG8 Forum as a significant
step backwards both for global democracy and for multistakeholder
participation.
 
 The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are
global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need
to involve all countries, as well as a wide range of civil society, business
and technical interests.
 
 We therefore request you, and other G8 leaders, to make the eG8 Forum
genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN Internet
Governance Forum (IGF). We are impressed with the solid support provided by
the G8 countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The
strong support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for
full multistakeholder participation in relation to the IGF makes this
current decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments'
industry partners is baffling, and unacceptable to the IGC, which advocates
for civil society's Internet governance interests.
 
 Yours sincerely,
 Jeremy Malcolm and Izumi Aizu
 Coordinators
 Internet Governance Caucus
 
 
-- 
 

Dr Jeremy Malcolm
 Project Coordinator
 Consumers International
 Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
 Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
 Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
 

Empowering Tomorrow¹s Consumers
 CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong
 

Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the
issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
 http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
 
 Read our  email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
this email unless necessary.
 
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/788028c6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From william.drake at uzh.ch  Wed May 11 03:29:22 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:29:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>

Hi

Sorry to be late to the party on this, but before the consensus call starts can we just clarify a key piece?

On May 11, 2011, at 9:13 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> We therefore request you, and other G8 leaders, to make the eG8 Forum genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

That model at present comprises peer-level annual dialogues that unlike G8 meetings do not entail the negotiation of recommendations/declarations etc.  Is that what we're arguing the G8 should do?  Or is the argument that there should be open peer-level participation in the negotiation of "results."?  If that's the goals then it would seem more consistent to mention participation in ICANN as the model, although probably that'd cause indigestion in some circles.  Either way, this seems like the big pay-off sentence of the message, so one could argue it should be clearer on what we'er asking for, no?

Best,

Bill____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From divina.meigs at orange.fr  Wed May 11 03:36:57 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:36:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] ] Internet G8 meeting : finalizing the text
In-Reply-To: <C9F0770E.189FA%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <C9F00939.20913%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Jeremy, Parminder, Jeanette, and all,

Without wanting to reduce the important current debate, we would appreciate,
on the French side, that you reach a consensus on the final  version as soon
as possible, because I will need to translate it and distribute it to our
various colleagues who have entries with ministries and media. The english
version  (and French one) will also need to be sent to strategic sites,
taking advantage of lots of meetings starting next week in Geneva, such as
WSIS, IGF, CSTD...   :-)

We will also need 2 or 3 sentences to present the gouvernance list, as
journalists are likely to ask for source and origin...

Best
Divina

Le 11/05/11 09:25, « Ian Peter » <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> a écrit :

> Looks great!
> 
> Very small grammatical issue ­ in last sentence drop word ³is² before baffling
> (easiest solution) or otherwise rewrite the sentence.
> 
> 
> Ian 
> 
> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Organization: Consumers International
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:13:45 +0800
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
> 
>    On 10/05/11 21:15, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Can we perhaps set a deadline?
>>  
>  
>  Yes, I'm going to put it to consensus call in the form below (incorporating
> the latest minor points).  Expect a poll invitation soon.  For the press
> release, we'll basically just lose the "Basic courtesy stuff" at the start and
> the "closing and salutations" at the end, and add a heading such as "Civil
> society censures French plan for closed meeting on Internet's future".
>  
>  Dear President Sarkozy,
>  
>  The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is an open forum of
> individual and organisational civil society actors who came together in the
> context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote
> global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making (see
> http://www.igcaucus.org).
>  
>  We understand that the French Presidency of the G8 proposes to hold a G8
> Internet meeting - the "eG8 Forum" - immediately prior to the G8 Summit in
> Deauville, with a view to prepare or influence the agenda for the G8 Summit
> regarding key global Internet issues. We also understand that many heads of
> states of G8 countries are expected to attend this meeting. The meeting is
> especially important since in the past G8 has set up the global agenda on many
> key issues, especially in the information society arena.
>  
>  We are very concerned about the manner in which the eG8 Forum is being
> organised which is ignoring current best practice in public policy making. It
> also jettisons the principle of multistakeholder participation that has
> evolved globally, especially in the area of Internet governance. It appears
> that the eG8 Forum is organized by large Industry with access given only to
> industry and government actors.  We have also understood that there is a
> linkage between donations and invitations.
>  
>  Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on public
> policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting with top G8
> leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related policies
> is inappropriate. What is required is a discussion that includes civil society
> actors, who will bring to the table the concerns of global public interest
> derived from a diversity of people's, of many sections of society, interests
> and concerns.
>  
>  It is also pertinent to state here that since the Internet is essentially a
> global phenomenon, policies framed together by the most powerful nations,
> quite likely, will become the default global norm. This is most true for
> architectural and economic issues, while the global impact on other areas will
> also be substantial. It is therefore appropriate that G8 countries engage with
> the same, and other issues, of Internet policies at the more democratic global
> forums where all countries are present at an equal footing. In this
> connection, there is the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
> mandated set of processes for dealing with pressing global Internet related
> issues. Multistakeholder participation is an important part of these global IG
> related processes. We see the eG8 Forum as a significant step backwards both
> for global democracy and for multistakeholder participation.
>  
>  The issues we face with internet governance and internet developments are
> global in nature, and adequate solutions to the problems we face will need to
> involve all countries, as well as a wide range of civil society, business and
> technical interests.
>  
>  We therefore request you, and other G8 leaders, to make the eG8 Forum
> genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN Internet Governance
> Forum (IGF). We are impressed with the solid support provided by the G8
> countries for upholding a multistakeholder model for the IGF. The strong
> support that many G8 countries, including your own, have shown for full
> multistakeholder participation in relation to the IGF makes this current
> decision to limit discussion to vested interests of governments' industry
> partners is baffling, and unacceptable to the IGC, which advocates for civil
> society's Internet governance interests.
>  
>  Yours sincerely,
>  Jeremy Malcolm and Izumi Aizu
>  Coordinators
>  Internet Governance Caucus
>  
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/98073f74/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed May 11 03:50:46 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:50:46 +0800
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org>

On 11/05/11 15:29, William Drake wrote:
> Sorry to be late to the party on this, but before the consensus call starts can we just clarify a key piece?

Sorry, I jumped the gun.

> That model at present comprises peer-level annual dialogues that unlike G8 meetings do not entail the negotiation of recommendations/declarations etc.  Is that what we're arguing the G8 should do?  Or is the argument that there should be open peer-level participation in the negotiation of "results."?  If that's the goals then it would seem more consistent to mention participation in ICANN as the model, although probably that'd cause indigestion in some circles.  Either way, this seems like the big pay-off sentence of the message, so one could argue it should be clearer on what we'er asking for, no?

The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the IGF.
In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper.  So I don't
see that there is an inconsistency here.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator*
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Empowering Tomorrow's Consumers
CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong*

Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on
the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
_http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/caaedafc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/caaedafc/attachment.bin>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Wed May 11 04:39:54 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 10:39:54 +0200
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>



On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> 
> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper.  So I don't see that there is an inconsistency here.

I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68 summits,  For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts. And the news reportage on this one http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may says  The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived to generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,

Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been fully vetted with counterpart countries.  In this context, it'd be surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled.  And if so, then the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?

Or maybe I'm missing something….

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/7fc3d0c5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From meryem at marzouki.info  Wed May 11 05:38:50 2011
From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 11:38:50 +0200
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>

Hi all,

Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!

I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the eG8 conclusions.

But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far. This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8 Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the G8 and not the G20.

Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi could draft a good sentence to express this point.

BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at: http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.

Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?

Best,
Meryem

Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :

> 
> 
> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> 
>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper.  So I don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
> 
> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68 summits,  For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts. And the news reportage on this one http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may says  The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived to generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,
> 
> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been fully vetted with counterpart countries.  In this context, it'd be surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled.  And if so, then the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
> 
> Or maybe I'm missing something….
> 
> Bill
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

--
Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
Email: meryem at marzouki.info
Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/2caba942/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed May 11 05:56:51 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 11:56:51 +0200
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu>

Hi,

I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has 
started.

I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the 
statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our 
preferred group to address Internet policies.

jeanette

On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>
> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
> eG8 conclusions.
>
> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
> G8 and not the G20.
>
> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>
> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>
> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>
> Best,
> Meryem
>
> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>
>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>> And the news reportage on this one
>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>> *
>> *
>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>
>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>>
>> Bill
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From meryem at marzouki.info  Wed May 11 05:59:30 2011
From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 11:59:30 +0200
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA31B@marzouki.info>

And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
Meryem

Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has started.
> 
> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our preferred group to address Internet policies.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>> 
>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>> eG8 conclusions.
>> 
>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
>> G8 and not the G20.
>> 
>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>> 
>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>> 
>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>> 
>> Best,
>> Meryem
>> 
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>> 
>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>> 
>>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org>
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

--
Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
Email: meryem at marzouki.info
Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From william.drake at uzh.ch  Wed May 11 07:41:16 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 13:41:16 +0200
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <5AE2B945-8141-4367-BB40-3F56B254D3F9@uzh.ch>



On May 11, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote:

>  think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the eG8 conclusions.

What I said was that If the eG8 aspires to advance conclusions as you suggest, the IGF, which is not currently set up to advance conclusions, might not be the best model for its activities.  Doesn't matter.

Best
BD____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed May 11 08:19:00 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 14:19:00 +0200
Subject: AW: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
 <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
 <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
 <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
 <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
 <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu>
 <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>
 <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>
 <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>
 <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
 <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
 <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu>
 <"8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA 31B"@marzouki.info>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF81@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Ig you go to the G 20 website and click "The French Priorities" there is nothing related to the Internet. This is a an interesting gap. Intentionally? They did just forget it? Or they do not want to talk about the Internet with Brasil, India and China?   The G 20 summit is planned for Cannes in November 2011. Another nice "film festivalö" and an opportonity for a stresstext how serious MS in IG is taken by governments.  
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Meryem Marzouki
Gesendet: Mi 11.05.2011 11:59
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting



And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
Meryem

Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has started.
>
> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our preferred group to address Internet policies.
>
> jeanette
>
> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>
>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>> eG8 conclusions.
>>
>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
>> G8 and not the G20.
>>
>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>
>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>> http://www.g20-g8.com <http://www.g20-g8.com/> , and there's an English version available.
>>
>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>
>> Best,
>> Meryem
>>
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>
>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>
>>> Or maybe I'm missing something....
>>>
>>> Bill
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/> >
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org <http://www.iris.sgdg.org/> >
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org/> >
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

--
Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
Email: meryem at marzouki.info
Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed May 11 08:24:28 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:24:28 -0300
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA31B@marzouki.info>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
	<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
	<20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net>
	<4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
	<c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
	<4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
	<F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
	<4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu>
	<4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
	<4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>
	<7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>
	<4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net>
	<4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>
	<4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>
	<34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
	<4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org>
	<A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
	<E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
	<4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu>
	<8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA31B@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com>

Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I
believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are
advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and
genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded
from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a
way of political pressure.

Marília

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info>wrote:

> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
> Meryem
>
> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has
> started.
> >
> > I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the
> statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our
> preferred group to address Internet policies.
> >
> > jeanette
> >
> > On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
> >>
> >> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
> >> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
> >> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
> >> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
> >> eG8 conclusions.
> >>
> >> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
> >> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
> >> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
> >> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
> >> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
> >> G8 and not the G20.
> >>
> >> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
> >> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
> >> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
> >> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
> >> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
> >> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
> >> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
> >> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
> >>
> >> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
> >> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
> >>
> >> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
> >> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Meryem
> >>
> >> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
> >>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
> >>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
> >>>
> >>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
> >>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
> >>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
> >>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
> >>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
> >>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
> >>> And the news reportage on this one
> >>>
> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
> >>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
> >>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
> >>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
> >>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
> >>> *
> >>> *
> >>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
> >>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
> >>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
> >>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
> >>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
> >>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
> >>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
> >>>
> >>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
> >>>
> >>> Bill
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>
> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> >> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
> >> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
> >> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> >> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
> >> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org>
> >>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/ea979898/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From avri at ella.com  Wed May 11 08:36:04 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 05:36:04 -0700
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-!
 1475755DA31B@marzouki.info> <BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>

Hi,

I am not sure I understand the suggestion.  Is that that we suggest that they not have a eG8 but have an 'eG20' instead?

As far as I understand the eG8 is already planned and the some people/organizations already have their invitations.  We want invitations for civil society becasue we want a seat at any table where these issues are being discussed on a global basis.

The issue of G8 versus G20 would be a different one and one that at least for the moment is a bit late in relations to this event.

Of course if there is a 'eG20', we should have argue for a seat at that table.

a.



On 11 May 2011, at 05:24, Marilia Maciel wrote:

> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a way of political pressure.
> 
> Marília
> 
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info> wrote:
> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
> Meryem
> 
> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has started.
> >
> > I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our preferred group to address Internet policies.
> >
> > jeanette
> >
> > On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
> >>
> >> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
> >> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
> >> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
> >> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
> >> eG8 conclusions.
> >>
> >> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
> >> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
> >> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
> >> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
> >> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
> >> G8 and not the G20.
> >>
> >> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
> >> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
> >> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
> >> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
> >> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
> >> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
> >> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
> >> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
> >>
> >> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
> >> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
> >>
> >> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
> >> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Meryem
> >>
> >> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
> >>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
> >>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
> >>>
> >>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
> >>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
> >>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
> >>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
> >>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
> >>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
> >>> And the news reportage on this one
> >>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
> >>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
> >>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
> >>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
> >>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
> >>> *
> >>> *
> >>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
> >>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
> >>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
> >>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
> >>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
> >>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
> >>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
> >>>
> >>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
> >>>
> >>> Bill
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>
> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> >> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
> >> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
> >> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> >> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
> >> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org>
> >>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> 
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
> 
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From william.drake at uzh.ch  Wed May 11 08:51:39 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 14:51:39 +0200
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
Message-ID: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>

Hello,

While I gather the level of meatspace participation by IGF types will be rather low next week in Geneva, all those who are making the trip would be most welcome to attend a workshop I've organized in the WSIS Forum.  There will be remote participation available as well through the forum site http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have register for this), a twitter feed, and so on.

The workshop will be held in the Governing Body Room (seems appropriate) of The International Labor Organization from 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May 2011.  The idea is to contribute to the inchoate debate on what kinds of institutional structures would be most appropriate in tackling key global governance issues going forward.  For example, rather than just saying on political/normative grounds that we prefer multistakeholderism or intergovernmentalism, it would be useful to draw on the relevant analytical literatures and practical experiences to arrive at some principled bases for selecting institutional arrangements that are optimized to particular functional problems.  This would seem to be of particular relevance at a time when parties are proposing new or revised global governance arrangements on various fronts, e.g. enhanced cooperation, the IANA contract, the COE initiative on crossborder Internet harm, the governance of the Internet of Things, the debate on revising the International Telecom Regulations to cover the Internet, the development agenda discussion, current intellectual property and digital trade initiatives, even the DC on Rights and Principles initiative for that matter.  What models are best suited to which of these issue-sets?


Description follows:

Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance

The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a significant increase in the number and variety of governance arrangements.  Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance, multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of independent practices.  These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes they possess.

How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance challenges?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms of cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency, transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness, and public interest orientation?  Are there any generalizable lessons that they could learn from one another?  How well do today’s mechanisms cohere into an strong and effective global governance architecture?  This workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and related questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT global governance.

Speakers

Dr. William J. Drake  [organizer & moderator]
International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division
Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
University of Zurich, Switzerland

Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen
Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications
South Africa

Mr. Alvaro Galvani
Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
Government of Brazil

Mr. Markus Kummer
Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society
Switzerland 

Prof. Michael Latzer
Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division
Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
University of Zurich, Switzerland

Ms. Nermine El Saadany
Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
Government of Egypt

Mr. Thomas Schneider
Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of Communications 
Government of Switzerland


We are hoping for a lively interactive discussion with no serial talking head presentations of pre-prepared speeches and ample time for interventions from the floor and remote.  So if this is of interest, please do join us.

I might add that this workshop is linked to a similarly constructed one I've proposed for Nairobi, although that one would have a somewhat different panel-line up and focus a bit more narrowly on global IG. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178  It should be interesting and instructive to address roughly the same issues in the two different venues with two different audiences…

Best,

Bill


--Please note new email address--

***************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch
www.williamdrake.org
****************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/ecc1b1aa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lehto.paul at gmail.com  Wed May 11 09:15:47 2011
From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:15:47 -0400
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
	<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
	<20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net>
	<4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
	<c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
	<4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
	<F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
	<4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu>
	<4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
	<4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>
	<7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>
	<4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net>
	<4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>
	<4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>
	<34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
	<4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org>
	<A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
	<E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
	<4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu>
	<8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA31B@marzouki.info>
	<BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikshQQJ1xrpXTyn64fGjL9=AMf1Dw@mail.gmail.com>

Process is all-important.  Elections are pure process, policy and
law-making are pure process.  Without an appropriate and legitimate
process, we have nothing.  Without legitimate process we have either
(1) Garbage in, garbage out, or (2)  We put good "meat" in (to a
defectively processing meat grinder), and get garbage out.

Now, we all tend to consider the views of opponents (or the opponents
wishing to speak or vote that we ever so "humbly" consider to be
uninformed) to be "garbage in."  But to deny the right of a say or of
a vote on any basis is to deny freedom to those who do not have the
vote or the say, because without the right to make a mistake or
advocate a wrongheaded view one is certainly not "free" -- one is
managed or controlled like a young child out of fear the young child
will make too many dangerous errors.  Thus universal suffrage, or as
close to it as we can possibly get at any given moment, is the only
pathway to policy legitimacy.

I've spoken before about the shortcomings of multistakeholderism - it
was derived directly from corporate governance and is itself still
stacked in favor of corporate interests, albeit less so than
non-multistakeholder approaches.  I can support the letter, but only
in the understanding that it is a step forward under present
circumstances and by no means the ultimate goal.

Alternatively, whether or not IGC is invited to the table, any
"policy" or "law" that comes out of a limited process like a G8 is
subject to being questioned by any who were not at the G8 table (and
any who consider their democratic processes within a G8 country as
having been  unduly compromised).  At least opening up to a
multistakeholder approach mitigates (though it does not at all
eliminate) the problem of legitimacy.

Making policy or law and then enforcing it against those without a
right of representation is a mere act of force, not one of legitimate
law.  It is always good to ask for, and insist on, a proper process.
Without it, what do we have?

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On 5/11/11, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I
> believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are
> advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and
> genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded
> from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a
> way of political pressure.
>
> Marília
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki
> <meryem at marzouki.info>wrote:
>
>> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
>> Meryem
>>
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has
>> started.
>> >
>> > I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the
>> statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our
>> preferred group to address Internet policies.
>> >
>> > jeanette
>> >
>> > On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>> >>
>> >> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because,
>> >> as
>> >> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>> >> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8
>> >> will
>> >> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>> >> eG8 conclusions.
>> >>
>> >> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>> >> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so
>> >> far.
>> >> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>> >> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>> >> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under
>> >> the
>> >> G8 and not the G20.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>> >> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>> >> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>> >> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>> >> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments
>> >> from
>> >> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>> >> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>> >> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>> >>
>> >> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>> >> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>> >>
>> >> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>> >> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Meryem
>> >>
>> >> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>> >>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>> >>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>> >>>
>> >>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>> >>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>> >>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>> >>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>> >>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>> >>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>> >>> And the news reportage on this one
>> >>>
>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>> >>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>> >>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>> >>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>> >>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>> >>> *
>> >>> *
>> >>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>> >>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>> >>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>> >>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>> >>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>> >>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>> >>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>> >>>
>> >>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>> >>>
>> >>> Bill
>> >>> ____________________________________________________________
>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >>>
>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >>>
>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> >> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>> >> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>> >> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> >> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>> >> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org>
>> >>
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed May 11 09:46:51 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 19:16:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <4DCA934B.6060908@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 11 May 2011 12:59 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Sorry to be late to the party on this, but before the consensus call starts can we just clarify a key piece?
>
> On May 11, 2011, at 9:13 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>> We therefore request you, and other G8 leaders, to make the eG8 Forum genuinely multistakeholder, following the model of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
> That model at present comprises peer-level annual dialogues that unlike G8 meetings do not entail the negotiation of recommendations/declarations etc.  Is that what we're arguing the G8 should do?
Hi Bill

As Jeremy explains we refer to the eG8 meeting, which is supposed to be 
a consultative forum for inputting into the formal G 8 meeting. And for 
me, IGF is nothing if not a policy participation / consultation forum 
for global Internet related policies. How do you see IGF, if not that?

The eG 8 website ( http://www.eg8forum.com/faq_EN.html ) says

"The Forum is a platform providing major stakeholders in the digital 
economy a chance to debate prior to the Deauville summit....... The G8 
Heads of State and Government meeting in Deauville will receive the 
inputs from the e-G8 Forum's proceedings."

Looks very much that IGF model should be applicable here.



> Or is the argument that there should be open peer-level participation in the negotiation of "results."?  If that's the goals then it would seem more consistent to mention participation in ICANN as the model, although probably that'd cause indigestion in some circles.

Since I am one of those whose digestive juices are going to be ill 
served by any such suggestion, can you please explain how ICANN can be a 
model for the kind of Internet policy issues that are on the agenda of 
eG8. ICANN's model seems to me made only for dealing with somewhat 
narrow technical issues, or thereabout. And it hardly does very well - 
democratic participation wise, even in dealing with those issues. Since 
you clearly suggest that ICANN model could likely be suggested in the 
present case, I am very interesting to know how would this model work 
for the kind of issues that eG8 is proposing to look into. For this 
purpose pl see the quotes below from eG8 fact sheet, also enclosed.

    The e-G8 Forum will address how traditional sectors are transforming
    under the influence of information technologies and communication.
    It will examine how the digital economy generates innovation,
    particularly in the fields of education, training and life-long
    learning. Other key subjects will include intellectual property in
    the digital era, the growth of e-commerce and the new mobile
    Internet revolution.

    The e-G8 Forum will also address social and philosophical issues
    inherent in the digital ecosystem: economically, the way in which
    companies function at a fundamental level is changing dramatically;
    culturally, digital technologies are transforming the publishing
    industry and artistic communities; and politically, citizens are
    empowered like never before, as the world witnessed with the recent
    revolutions in the Arab world. Finally, the nature of future
    Internet developments will be discussed.

I am genuinely interested if you can suggest, even at a theoretical 
level, how can the ICANN model even begin dealing with these issues.

Parminder

> Either way, this seems like the big pay-off sentence of the message, so one could argue it should be clearer on what we'er asking for, no?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/5403bc80/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/5403bc80/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FactSheet e-G8 ENG.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 239317 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/5403bc80/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed May 11 10:00:16 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 19:30:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <4DCA9670.1040000@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 11 May 2011 02:09 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
>
> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the 
>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper.  So 
>> I don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>
> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68 
> summits,  For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's 
> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the 
> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally 
> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations 
> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts. 
> And the news reportage on this one 
> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may says 
>  The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May 
> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o 
> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector 
> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*

All these recs of the side events are made without formal negotiating 
processes, isnt it.... In fact these are good examples to show how 
deliberative processes can arrive at recs, wthout formal negotiations. 
(In fact, you say, you wrote the recs on global digital divide, that 
hardly looks like a negotiation process). In fact it is unfortunate how 
those opposed to strengthening the policy role of the IGF have linked 
IGF recs necessarily to UN style formal negotiations. Since there cannot 
be such negotiations at the IGF, there cant be recs by the IGF - their 
simple but deliberately fallacious logic.
> *
> *
> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from 
> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in 
> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been 
> fully vetted with counterpart countries.  In this context, it'd be 
> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being 
> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled.

We think there will be, and we are afraid of that and are opposing their 
non-inclusive nature. As is suggested from your earlier examples of the 
Okinawa summit, these recs are likely to have a powerful influence on 
what gets decided and announced by the G 8 meeting, which is likely to 
have a powerfu linflcuence on the future of global IG. I am not clear 
why does this not bother you.

>  And if so, then the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should 
> follow, no?

We see IGF as a public participation/ consultation model for Internet 
policy making, and thus we think that its model should be used for all 
forums that are supposed to input public opinion (or that of all 
stakeholders) into formal policy making processes.

parminder
>
> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>
> Bill

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/5e31ebd6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/5e31ebd6/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From avri at ella.com  Wed May 11 10:01:50 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 10:01:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCA934B.6060908@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA934B.6060908@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <2EB68054-0F63-4935-B694-951828D61C8D@ella.com>


On 11 May 2011, at 09:46, parminder wrote:

>> 
>> Or is the argument that there should be open peer-level participation in the negotiation of "results."?  If that's the goals then it would seem more consistent to mention participation in ICANN as the model, although probably that'd cause indigestion in some circles.  
> 
> Since I am one of those whose digestive juices are going to be ill served by any such suggestion, can you please explain how ICANN can be a model for the kind of Internet policy issues that are on the agenda of eG8. ICANN's model seems to me made only for dealing with somewhat narrow technical issues, or thereabout. And it hardly does very well - democratic participation wise, even in dealing with those issues. 


I have to endorse this.  While ICANN like the eG8 does very well for the expression of diverse business interests, it has a long way to go before it is a paragon of the multistakeholder model as far as civil society goes.

Yes ICANN is a work in progress and an excellent crucible for developing the model, but civil society has by no means achieved parity.  What the IGC should be asking for is parity and using ICANN as a good example seems to be a bad idea.

a.____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From meryem at marzouki.info  Wed May 11 10:24:39 2011
From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 16:24:39 +0200
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-!
 ! 1475755DA31B@marzouki.info> <BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com> <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
Message-ID: <A2AEF699-0646-4825-A7A9-EBD256E8FAAE@marzouki.info>

Hi Avri,

I was thinking of underlining that Internet issues should have been handled by the G20 instead of G8, a point that G20-8 governments could back later on (G20 summit is scheduled 3-4 Nov). A longer term issue.

In terms of (genuinely) requesting a seat a the table, even for the eG8 it's rather late anyway: it should be held on 24-25 mai in Paris, only some days before the G8 itself.

In any case, do you know that the eG8 is currently looking for sponsors? A news article dated May 2 (yes, 2011...) reports that a big communication company is recruiting sponsors. Sponsorship could be 100 000, 250 000 et 500 000 euros. Starting from 250K€, the sponsor will have its brand on all official panels (shown on TV, I assume) and the head of the company will be co-chairman of eG8, i.e. they can participate to plenaries and round table. In summary: you pay, you speak. The scandal is reported here: http://www.journaldunet.com/ebusiness/le-net/sponsors-eg8-0511.shtml, quoting La Tribune, an important economic French newspaper.

Best,
Meryem

Le 11 mai 2011 à 14:36, Avri Doria a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> I am not sure I understand the suggestion.  Is that that we suggest that they not have a eG8 but have an 'eG20' instead?
> 
> As far as I understand the eG8 is already planned and the some people/organizations already have their invitations.  We want invitations for civil society becasue we want a seat at any table where these issues are being discussed on a global basis.
> 
> The issue of G8 versus G20 would be a different one and one that at least for the moment is a bit late in relations to this event.
> 
> Of course if there is a 'eG20', we should have argue for a seat at that table.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 11 May 2011, at 05:24, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> 
>> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a way of political pressure.
>> 
>> Marília
>> 
>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info> wrote:
>> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
>> Meryem
>> 
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has started.
>>> 
>>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our preferred group to address Internet policies.
>>> 
>>> jeanette
>>> 
>>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>>> 
>>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
>>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
>>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>>>> eG8 conclusions.
>>>> 
>>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
>>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
>>>> G8 and not the G20.
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
>>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>>> 
>>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>>>> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>>>> 
>>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Meryem
>>>> 
>>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org>
>>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>   governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>> 
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

--
Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
Email: meryem at marzouki.info
Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From avri at ella.com  Wed May 11 10:46:40 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 10:46:40 -0400
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <A2AEF699-0646-4825-A7A9-EBD256E8FAAE@marzouki.info>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-!
 ! ! 1475755DA31B@marzouki.info> <BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com> <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com> <A2AEF699-0646-4825-A7A9-EBD256E8FAAE@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <8283BB98-744C-4DAC-A55A-B3118E6B4733@ella.com>

Hi,

I think I agree that the broader the group the better.  But at this point I thought the G8 versus G20 battle was a different issue.  We should definitely find out early if there will be multistakeholder participation in any part of it.  And should mount a timely campaign to make sure we are included.

Thanks for the update on the costs for co-chairing - that is so very typical for something that caters to business: in American slang: 'Show us the love'.  

Do you know if ISOC and others of the Internet Technical Community are having to pay to attend?

a.



On 11 May 2011, at 10:24, Meryem Marzouki wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> 
> I was thinking of underlining that Internet issues should have been handled by the G20 instead of G8, a point that G20-8 governments could back later on (G20 summit is scheduled 3-4 Nov). A longer term issue.
> 
> In terms of (genuinely) requesting a seat a the table, even for the eG8 it's rather late anyway: it should be held on 24-25 mai in Paris, only some days before the G8 itself.
> 
> In any case, do you know that the eG8 is currently looking for sponsors? A news article dated May 2 (yes, 2011...) reports that a big communication company is recruiting sponsors. Sponsorship could be 100 000, 250 000 et 500 000 euros. Starting from 250K€, the sponsor will have its brand on all official panels (shown on TV, I assume) and the head of the company will be co-chairman of eG8, i.e. they can participate to plenaries and round table. In summary: you pay, you speak. The scandal is reported here: http://www.journaldunet.com/ebusiness/le-net/sponsors-eg8-0511.shtml, quoting La Tribune, an important economic French newspaper.
> 
> Best,
> Meryem
> 
> Le 11 mai 2011 à 14:36, Avri Doria a écrit :
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I am not sure I understand the suggestion.  Is that that we suggest that they not have a eG8 but have an 'eG20' instead?
>> 
>> As far as I understand the eG8 is already planned and the some people/organizations already have their invitations.  We want invitations for civil society becasue we want a seat at any table where these issues are being discussed on a global basis.
>> 
>> The issue of G8 versus G20 would be a different one and one that at least for the moment is a bit late in relations to this event.
>> 
>> Of course if there is a 'eG20', we should have argue for a seat at that table.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11 May 2011, at 05:24, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>> 
>>> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a way of political pressure.
>>> 
>>> Marília
>>> 
>>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info> wrote:
>>> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
>>> Meryem
>>> 
>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has started.
>>>> 
>>>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our preferred group to address Internet policies.
>>>> 
>>>> jeanette
>>>> 
>>>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
>>>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>>>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
>>>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>>>>> eG8 conclusions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>>>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
>>>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>>>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>>>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
>>>>> G8 and not the G20.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>>>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>>>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>>>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>>>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
>>>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>>>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>>>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>>>> 
>>>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>>>>> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>>>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Meryem
>>>>> 
>>>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>>>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>>>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>>>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>>>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>>>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>>>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>>>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>>>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>>>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org>
>>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>  governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>  http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>   governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>>> FGV Direito Rio
>>> 
>>> Center for Technology and Society
>>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>   governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed May 11 10:47:21 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 11:47:21 -0300
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <A2AEF699-0646-4825-A7A9-EBD256E8FAAE@marzouki.info>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
	<Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
	<20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net>
	<4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
	<c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
	<4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
	<F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
	<4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu>
	<4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
	<4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>
	<7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>
	<4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net>
	<4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>
	<4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>
	<34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
	<4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org>
	<A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
	<E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
	<4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu>
	<BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com>
	<C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
	<A2AEF699-0646-4825-A7A9-EBD256E8FAAE@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikp_s_OXtx_YycymS-fGMPdiRYSzg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for this very interesting and useful information, Maryem.It is
troubling to notice how the financial crisis has been the reason (or the
perfect excuse) for some governments to fall definately into the arms of the
business sector. This promiscuity we are watnessing is highly questionable
from a moral and from a democratic perspective.

The good thing about it is that the masks are starting to fall and we see
their contradictory positions. It has always been disturbing to me, for
instance, to watch some European governments paying lip service to
principles, such as access to knowledge and information in the IGF, and see
how they behave in WIPO, totally coopted by the copyright industry of their
countries.

Marília

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info>wrote:

> Hi Avri,
>
> I was thinking of underlining that Internet issues should have been handled
> by the G20 instead of G8, a point that G20-8 governments could back later on
> (G20 summit is scheduled 3-4 Nov). A longer term issue.
>
> In terms of (genuinely) requesting a seat a the table, even for the eG8
> it's rather late anyway: it should be held on 24-25 mai in Paris, only some
> days before the G8 itself.
>
> In any case, do you know that the eG8 is currently looking for sponsors? A
> news article dated May 2 (yes, 2011...) reports that a big communication
> company is recruiting sponsors. Sponsorship could be 100 000, 250 000 et 500
> 000 euros. Starting from 250K€, the sponsor will have its brand on all
> official panels (shown on TV, I assume) and the head of the company will be
> co-chairman of eG8, i.e. they can participate to plenaries and round table.
> In summary: you pay, you speak. The scandal is reported here:
> http://www.journaldunet.com/ebusiness/le-net/sponsors-eg8-0511.shtml,
> quoting La Tribune, an important economic French newspaper.
>
> Best,
> Meryem
>
> Le 11 mai 2011 à 14:36, Avri Doria a écrit :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am not sure I understand the suggestion.  Is that that we suggest that
> they not have a eG8 but have an 'eG20' instead?
> >
> > As far as I understand the eG8 is already planned and the some
> people/organizations already have their invitations.  We want invitations
> for civil society becasue we want a seat at any table where these issues are
> being discussed on a global basis.
> >
> > The issue of G8 versus G20 would be a different one and one that at least
> for the moment is a bit late in relations to this event.
> >
> > Of course if there is a 'eG20', we should have argue for a seat at that
> table.
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11 May 2011, at 05:24, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> >
> >> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I
> believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are
> advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and
> genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded
> from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a
> way of political pressure.
> >>
> >> Marília
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info>
> wrote:
> >> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
> >> Meryem
> >>
> >> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has
> started.
> >>>
> >>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the
> statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our
> preferred group to address Internet policies.
> >>>
> >>> jeanette
> >>>
> >>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because,
> as
> >>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
> >>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8
> will
> >>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
> >>>> eG8 conclusions.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
> >>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so
> far.
> >>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
> >>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November
> in
> >>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under
> the
> >>>> G8 and not the G20.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
> >>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will
> become
> >>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues
> should
> >>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
> >>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments
> from
> >>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
> >>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and
> Izumi
> >>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
> >>>> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
> >>>>
> >>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO
> signatures
> >>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> Meryem
> >>>>
> >>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
> >>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So
> I
> >>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
> >>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
> >>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
> >>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
> >>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly
> declarations
> >>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
> >>>>> And the news reportage on this one
> >>>>>
> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
> >>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
> >>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
> >>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
> >>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
> >>>>> *
> >>>>> *
> >>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
> >>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events
> in
> >>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
> >>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
> >>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
> >>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so,
> then
> >>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bill
> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> >>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
> >>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr
> >
> >>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> >>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
> >>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org>
> >>>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>   governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>
> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> >> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
> >> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
> >> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> >> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> >> FGV Direito Rio
> >>
> >> Center for Technology and Society
> >> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/247fa22f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From william.drake at uzh.ch  Wed May 11 12:13:06 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 18:13:06 +0200
Subject: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCA934B.6060908@itforchange.net>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA934B.6060908@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <0D87F124-759B-4A79-BAC6-B7F3D7D341B1@uzh.ch>

Hi Parminder

On May 11, 2011, at 3:46 PM, parminder wrote:

> 
> As Jeremy explains we refer to the eG8 meeting, which is supposed to be a consultative forum for inputting into the formal G 8 meeting. And for me, IGF is nothing if not a policy participation / consultation forum for global Internet related policies. How do you see IGF, if not that?

Again, from what I'd read the idea was for these corporate folks to generate some output recommendations that would be taken into the intergovernmental process, and my point was simply that while the open participatory model of IGF is the right one, it's not currently set up to be able to work out recs that would have any standing with anyone.  For folks who think IGF ought to have that capacity, holding up the current somewhat enfeebled structure as a model to emulate seems an odd choice.
>> Or is the argument that there should be open peer-level participation in the negotiation of "results."?  If that's the goals then it would seem more consistent to mention participation in ICANN as the model, although probably that'd cause indigestion in some circles.  
> Since I am one of those whose digestive juices are going to be ill served by any such suggestion, can you please explain how ICANN can be a model for the kind of Internet policy issues that are on the agenda of eG8. ICANN's model seems to me made only for dealing with somewhat narrow technical issues, or thereabout. And it hardly does very well - democratic participation wise, even in dealing with those issues. Since you clearly suggest that ICANN model could likely be suggested in the present case, I am very interesting to know how would this model work for the kind of issues that eG8 is proposing to look into. For this purpose pl see the quotes below from eG8 fact sheet, also enclosed.

We can agree to disagree on whether what ICANN does is just narrow and technical.  My point is simply that there are institutional structures that allows CS inputs to be brought into the decision making process on nominally/formally equal terms...formally being a big caveat, since of course CS has the least power and outcomes usually are driven more by the competition between different industry factions (which is pervasive in ICANN…I'm always amazed to read characterizations of business as being a singular block with a singular perspective…these folks are at each others' throats half the time).  On the other hand, one could also point to a number of cases were CS/noncommercial ideas drove agendas and led to outcomes that wouldn't have happened in their absence.  CS in ICANN and IGF is actually a rather interesting comparison...

Bottom line, institutional rules and decision making procedures matter, and IGF presently lacks the machinery that would allow for working out "institution"-wide recs in which CS inputs have to be taken on board and at least responded to when making decisions.  We can't even get agreement for mechanisms at a sub-instituiton level, like working groups that can make recs.  So while the peer-level participation half is great, the lack of mechanisms for working out outcomes based on due process doesn't seem like a good answer.


On May 11, 2011, at 4:00 PM, parminder wrote:

[two messages 14 min apart with the same subject line…you have a lot of bandwidth for this...glad I read both…]

> 
> On Wednesday 11 May 2011 02:09 PM, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> 
>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper.  So I don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>> 
>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68 summits,  For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts. And the news reportage on this one http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may says  The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived to generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,
> 
> All these recs of the side events are made without formal negotiating processes, isnt it.... In fact these are good examples to show how deliberative processes can arrive at recs, wthout formal negotiations. (In fact, you say, you wrote the recs on global digital divide, that hardly looks like a negotiation process).

You must be joking.  There was a TF with reps from like 34 companies plus speaking observers including ten international organizations, foreign policy think tanks, university programs and foundations.  Many different preferences on some points and the process of negotiating to consensus required months of meetings.  I just wrote it up, sneaked in some additional bits, and sold it back to them.

> In fact it is unfortunate how those opposed to strengthening the policy role of the IGF have linked IGF recs necessarily to UN style formal negotiations. Since there cannot be such negotiations at the IGF, there cant be recs by the IGF - their simple but deliberately fallacious logic. 

Yes there are a lot of actors who anticipate, based on WSIS and the wider history of global governance, that reconciling highly diverse views and preferences would require formal negotiations.  Aside from hoping that working groups could do things in a more rational and effective way, or proposing loose sense of the room messages, what have we offered them in the way of other models to work with?  How might one architect a collaborative process that sidestepped the kinds of dynamics they fear?  I don't think we (IGC, CS) have really contributed much out of the box thinking on this that would provide much basis for concerned parties to unclench, and meanwhile whenever governments speak to the matter they throw it back into the intergovernmental negotiation frame, not so helpful. So we end up with polarization and immobility.  It's reminiscent of the situation circa 1994 with the definition of IG, it took orthogonal third way thinking from CS to uncork the thing.  We haven't done the same on "outcomes."
>> 
>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been fully vetted with counterpart countries.  In this context, it'd be surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled.
> 
> We think there will be, and we are afraid of that and are opposing their non-inclusive nature. As is suggested from your earlier examples of the Okinawa summit, these recs are likely to have a powerful influence on what gets decided and announced by the G 8 meeting, which is likely to have a powerfu linflcuence on the future of global IG. I am not clear why does this not bother you. 

You'd be a lot clearer if you eschewed misreading things into what I say.  I didn't say it doesn't bother me, it does.  All I said was holding up IGF's dysfunctional non-decision making model as a solution to the need for multistakeholder decision making seemed odd.
> 
>>  And if so, then the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
> 
> We see IGF as a public participation/ consultation model for Internet policy making, and thus we think that its model should be used for all forums that are supposed to input public opinion (or that of all stakeholders) into formal policy making processes. 

Can't you separate the issues of participation rights and decision making procedures?  IGF's great for the former, has bupkis for the latter.

We're actually more or less on the same page, even if you refuse to accept it…I just think we need to have serious discussions about alternative decision making/consensus building modalities.  That's part of why I'm doing workshops on institutional design and choice.  

Cheers

Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/72a9dcc1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed May 11 13:07:05 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 19:07:05 +0200
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA31B@marzouki.info>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA31B@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <4DCAC239.5050606@wzb.eu>

Sorry, I was offline most of the day. Marilia said it all in her reply:

Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I 
believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are 
advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and 
genuinely multistakeholder.

While G20 would be marginally more representative it is not 
categorically different from the G8. I wouldn't want them either to 
develop Internet policies on our behalf without consulting/integrating us.

jeanette

On 11.05.2011 11:59, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
> Meryem
>
> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has started.
>>
>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our preferred group to address Internet policies.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>>
>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>>> eG8 conclusions.
>>>
>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
>>> G8 and not the G20.
>>>
>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>>
>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>>> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>>>
>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Meryem
>>>
>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>>
>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info<mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr<http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org<http://www.edri.org>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From meryem at marzouki.info  Wed May 11 14:06:58 2011
From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 20:06:58 +0200
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <8283BB98-744C-4DAC-A55A-B3118E6B4733@ella.com>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-!
 ! ! ! 1475755DA31B@marzouki.info> <BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com> <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com> <A2AEF699-0646-4825-A7A9-EBD256E8FAAE@marzouki.info> <8283BB98-744C-4DAC-A55A-B3118E6B4733@ella.com>
Message-ID: <0C771AFA-4BA0-447A-A17E-B0514FE47B37@marzouki.info>


Le 11 mai 2011 à 16:46, Avri Doria a écrit :

> 
> Do you know if ISOC and others of the Internet Technical Community are having to pay to attend?

No idea. Note that you don't *have to* pay to attend, it's by invitation. But if you can afford to "sponsor", then as far as I undertsand it gives you the right to attend (and speak).

Meryem____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From meryem at marzouki.info  Wed May 11 14:21:00 2011
From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 20:21:00 +0200
Subject: [governance] Rupert Murdoch confirmed participation at eG8
Message-ID: <FE308C0B-1512-4DC6-8E65-7ADDEFCC9AFE@marzouki.info>

It's here (in French)
http://www.lesechos.fr/investisseurs/actualites-boursieres/0201362365713-le-clan-murdoch-en-force-au-eg8-forum.htm

The eG8 is chaired and organized by Publicis' president and the theme is 'The Internet as growth accelerator' (more or less: Internet l'accélérateur de croissance in French)..

This other article (in English) says, though, that there are 3 big themes under this general "accelerating growth" thing, among them Internet and Human rights (ah ah ah) and Internet and privacy (Google's is confirmed too;))

Now in this article (in French), there's merely one session on "changing the society" (humm..), the rest being more about business opportunities, innovation, Internet Future, Intellectual property, etc.: http://frenchweb.fr/e-g8-forum-2011-le-programme-de-la-conference-internet/

Meryem

--
Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
Email: meryem at marzouki.info
Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed May 11 14:57:57 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 06:57:57 +1200
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>

This is excellent. Will there be remote participation?



On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:51 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> Hello,
> While I gather the level of meatspace participation by IGF types will be
> rather low next week in Geneva, all those who are making the trip would be
> most welcome to attend a workshop I've organized in the WSIS Forum.  There
> will be remote participation available as well through the forum
> site http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have
> register for this), a twitter feed, and so on.
> The workshop will be held in the Governing Body Room (seems appropriate)
> of The International Labor Organization from 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May 2011.
>  The idea is to contribute to the inchoate debate on what kinds of
> institutional structures would be most appropriate in tackling key global
> governance issues going forward.  For example, rather than just saying on
> political/normative grounds that we prefer multistakeholderism or
> intergovernmentalism, it would be useful to draw on the relevant analytical
> literatures and practical experiences to arrive at some principled bases for
> selecting institutional arrangements that are optimized to particular
> functional problems.  This would seem to be of particular relevance at a
> time when parties are proposing new or revised global governance
> arrangements on various fronts, e.g. enhanced cooperation, the IANA
> contract, the COE initiative on crossborder Internet harm, the governance of
> the Internet of Things, the debate on revising the International Telecom
> Regulations to cover the Internet, the development agenda discussion,
> current intellectual property and digital trade initiatives, even the DC on
> Rights and Principles initiative for that matter.  What models are best
> suited to which of these issue-sets?
>
> Description follows:
> Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance
>
> The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a
> significant increase in the number and variety of governance
> arrangements.  Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by
> plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by
> unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance,
> multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of independent
> practices.  These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the
> collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes
> they possess.
>
> How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative
> merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance
> challenges?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms of
> cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency,
> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness,
> and public interest orientation?  Are there any generalizable lessons that
> they could learn from one another?  How well do today’s mechanisms cohere
> into an strong and effective global governance architecture?  This
> workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and related
> questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT
> global governance.
>
> Speakers
>
> Dr. William J. Drake  [organizer & moderator]
> International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division
> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>
> Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen
> Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications
> South Africa
>
> Mr. Alvaro Galvani
> Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
> Government of Brazil
>
> Mr. Markus Kummer
> Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society
> Switzerland
>
> Prof. Michael Latzer
> Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division
> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>
> Ms. Nermine El Saadany
> Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications and
> Information Technology
> Government of Egypt
>
> Mr. Thomas Schneider
> Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of
> Communications
> Government of Switzerland
>
> We are hoping for a lively interactive discussion with no serial talking
> head presentations of pre-prepared speeches and ample time for interventions
> from the floor and remote.  So if this is of interest, please do join us.
> I might add that this workshop is linked to a similarly constructed one I've
> proposed for Nairobi, although that one would have a somewhat different
> panel-line up and focus a bit more narrowly on global
> IG. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178  It
> should be interesting and instructive to address roughly the same issues in
> the two different venues with two different audiences…
> Best,
> Bill
>
> --Please note new email address--
>
> ***************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch
> www.williamdrake.org
> ****************************************************
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>



-- 
Sala

"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From avri at ella.com  Wed May 11 15:10:06 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:10:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <14320FD4-C5BC-4C58-B88D-94928AB0A114@ella.com>

Hi,

As someone else who cannot come to Geneva, I hope so.  I expect ITU would be as attentive to the need to remote participation as the IGF and other organization involved in Internet governance.

a.

On 11 May 2011, at 14:57, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:

> This is excellent. Will there be remote participation?
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:51 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> While I gather the level of meatspace participation by IGF types will be
>> rather low next week in Geneva, all those who are making the trip would be
>> most welcome to attend a workshop I've organized in the WSIS Forum.  There
>> will be remote participation available as well through the forum
>> site http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have
>> register for this), a twitter feed, and so on.
>> The workshop will be held in the Governing Body Room (seems appropriate)
>> of The International Labor Organization from 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May 2011.
>>  The idea is to contribute to the inchoate debate on what kinds of
>> institutional structures would be most appropriate in tackling key global
>> governance issues going forward.  For example, rather than just saying on
>> political/normative grounds that we prefer multistakeholderism or
>> intergovernmentalism, it would be useful to draw on the relevant analytical
>> literatures and practical experiences to arrive at some principled bases for
>> selecting institutional arrangements that are optimized to particular
>> functional problems.  This would seem to be of particular relevance at a
>> time when parties are proposing new or revised global governance
>> arrangements on various fronts, e.g. enhanced cooperation, the IANA
>> contract, the COE initiative on crossborder Internet harm, the governance of
>> the Internet of Things, the debate on revising the International Telecom
>> Regulations to cover the Internet, the development agenda discussion,
>> current intellectual property and digital trade initiatives, even the DC on
>> Rights and Principles initiative for that matter.  What models are best
>> suited to which of these issue-sets?
>> 
>> Description follows:
>> Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance
>> 
>> The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a
>> significant increase in the number and variety of governance
>> arrangements.  Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by
>> plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by
>> unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance,
>> multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of independent
>> practices.  These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the
>> collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes
>> they possess.
>> 
>> How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative
>> merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance
>> challenges?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms of
>> cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency,
>> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness,
>> and public interest orientation?  Are there any generalizable lessons that
>> they could learn from one another?  How well do today’s mechanisms cohere
>> into an strong and effective global governance architecture?  This
>> workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and related
>> questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT
>> global governance.
>> 
>> Speakers
>> 
>> Dr. William J. Drake  [organizer & moderator]
>> International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division
>> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> 
>> Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications
>> South Africa
>> 
>> Mr. Alvaro Galvani
>> Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
>> Government of Brazil
>> 
>> Mr. Markus Kummer
>> Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society
>> Switzerland
>> 
>> Prof. Michael Latzer
>> Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division
>> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> 
>> Ms. Nermine El Saadany
>> Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications and
>> Information Technology
>> Government of Egypt
>> 
>> Mr. Thomas Schneider
>> Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of
>> Communications
>> Government of Switzerland
>> 
>> We are hoping for a lively interactive discussion with no serial talking
>> head presentations of pre-prepared speeches and ample time for interventions
>> from the floor and remote.  So if this is of interest, please do join us.
>> I might add that this workshop is linked to a similarly constructed one I've
>> proposed for Nairobi, although that one would have a somewhat different
>> panel-line up and focus a bit more narrowly on global
>> IG. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178  It
>> should be interesting and instructive to address roughly the same issues in
>> the two different venues with two different audiences…
>> Best,
>> Bill
>> 
>> --Please note new email address--
>> 
>> ***************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow
>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>> www.williamdrake.org
>> ****************************************************
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sala
> 
> "Stillness in the midst of the noise".
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed May 11 15:26:57 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 03:26:57 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?
In-Reply-To: <4DCA16DE.9010600@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <139B0043B4EA4E3BA02D67D4B602BD2A@userPC>

In this context I think that it is useful to try to stretch our CS thinking
back before the neo-liberal onslaught wrecked havoc with the role of the
state in attempting to ensure equity/universailty in areas such as
telecommunications and transport.  In Canada at least, a very great
component of the political and regulatory history of the late 19th and 20th
centuries had to do with developing the means to manage and control
predation in the areas of technology advance in the late 19th
century--electricity, transport, telecommunication--to ensure some degree of
rate (and service) balancing (and non-discrimination) as between regions and
individual consumers(as well in certain instances extended to universality
of access).  In Canada this produced nationalized railways, a national
airline, a national broadcaster, nationalized electricity suppliers,
nationalized telecommunications carriers in certain provinces and very
highly regulated telecoms at the national level.
 
I believe there were similar developments in many other national
jurisdictions.
 
The technology developments and globalization of service provision in a
number of areas of the late 20th century obviated the need for certain of
these state sponsored service provision leading to deregulation and
privatization, although almost certainly not as much as neo-liberal
ideologists have managed to convince/coerce governments and electorates.
 
However, the same techology advances in certain areas--global
communications, virtual public space, the global knowledge sphere--have
resulted in a shifting of the need for regulation/management in the public
interest to the global and away from the national (just as the developments
of the late 19th and early 20th shifted them from the local to the
national).
 
That we don't have institutional or regulatory mechanisms in place (yet) to
manage these is not, I think, because of their nature but rather because of
political immaturity in managing at the global level and from the fierce
resistance (including or even especially at the ideological level) from
those who are benefiting from their current monopoly positions (quite
parallel I would think to the railway etc. robber barons of the 19th
century). 
 
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of parminder
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 1:56 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: FW: [OIA] MS & Skype?




On Wednesday 11 May 2011 01:25 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: 

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:49:24AM -0700,

 Michael Gurstein  <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote 

 a message of 51 lines which said:



I'm not exactly sure how/where this should be covered in IG

discussions but even from a purely self-interested CS perspective

there is an absolute need to begin to work towards some sort of

global institutional/regulatory framework to ensure the preservation

of a public interest in a global virtual public space and public

capacity for very low cost IP enabled international communications

(a la skype).

I fail to see why the fate of the private company Skype, which

produces a closed software using undocumented proprietary protocols

could be a subject for CS.


In the same way as Google of the closed algorithm is difficult to ignore as
a subject by civil society. Is there anyone here who doesnt use google?
Would MS and Google merging be not a big issue for all us? 


I agree that "preservation of a public interest in a global virtual

public space" and "very low cost IP enabled international

communications" are good goals. But Skype is the very counter-example

of what we should aim for. 

I agree that is the point. But what do you think we should aim for. Not only
as our IP based communication system, but also as our search engine, and our
social networking site,  as out payment gateway ......

The solution lies both in encouraging alternative practises, models and
software/ applications, but as much in right regulatory frameworks. It would
never to be possible to get what we seek without the later. That for me is
one of the biggest IG issue around today. parminder 




Specially, the fact that the source code is

hidden from its users is there to hide shameful practices such as

enrolling users as "supernodes" without asking their advice or even

informing them (see

 
<http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.h
tml>
<http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t727931-skype-fixed-supernodes-list.h
tml>

and the list in

 <http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>
<http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/skype_servers.txt>).



So, if CS is interested in "preservation of a public interest in a

global virtual public space", it should push the use of open protocols

for instant messaging and voice over Internet (XMPP and SIP), not to

encourage closed software.



____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

     governance at lists.cpsr.org

To be removed from the list, visit:

     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing



For all other list information and functions, see:

     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

     http://www.igcaucus.org/



Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t






-- 




Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change 
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/> 
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/10d0578d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/10d0578d/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed May 11 15:54:05 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 07:54:05 +1200
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <14320FD4-C5BC-4C58-B88D-94928AB0A114@ella.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<14320FD4-C5BC-4C58-B88D-94928AB0A114@ella.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTin=9QBC+NOwLC91bPydBVJcdjObEg@mail.gmail.com>

If each of in our regions make the request known through the ITU
Pacific Rep, or ITU Asia etc, they can raise our request for remote
participation. I will ask Gisa from this end.

Sala

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As someone else who cannot come to Geneva, I hope so.  I expect ITU would be as attentive to the need to remote participation as the IGF and other organization involved in Internet governance.
>
> a.
>
> On 11 May 2011, at 14:57, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
>> This is excellent. Will there be remote participation?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:51 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> While I gather the level of meatspace participation by IGF types will be
>>> rather low next week in Geneva, all those who are making the trip would be
>>> most welcome to attend a workshop I've organized in the WSIS Forum.  There
>>> will be remote participation available as well through the forum
>>> site http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have
>>> register for this), a twitter feed, and so on.
>>> The workshop will be held in the Governing Body Room (seems appropriate)
>>> of The International Labor Organization from 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May 2011.
>>>  The idea is to contribute to the inchoate debate on what kinds of
>>> institutional structures would be most appropriate in tackling key global
>>> governance issues going forward.  For example, rather than just saying on
>>> political/normative grounds that we prefer multistakeholderism or
>>> intergovernmentalism, it would be useful to draw on the relevant analytical
>>> literatures and practical experiences to arrive at some principled bases for
>>> selecting institutional arrangements that are optimized to particular
>>> functional problems.  This would seem to be of particular relevance at a
>>> time when parties are proposing new or revised global governance
>>> arrangements on various fronts, e.g. enhanced cooperation, the IANA
>>> contract, the COE initiative on crossborder Internet harm, the governance of
>>> the Internet of Things, the debate on revising the International Telecom
>>> Regulations to cover the Internet, the development agenda discussion,
>>> current intellectual property and digital trade initiatives, even the DC on
>>> Rights and Principles initiative for that matter.  What models are best
>>> suited to which of these issue-sets?
>>>
>>> Description follows:
>>> Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance
>>>
>>> The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a
>>> significant increase in the number and variety of governance
>>> arrangements.  Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by
>>> plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by
>>> unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance,
>>> multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of independent
>>> practices.  These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the
>>> collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes
>>> they possess.
>>>
>>> How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative
>>> merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance
>>> challenges?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms of
>>> cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency,
>>> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness,
>>> and public interest orientation?  Are there any generalizable lessons that
>>> they could learn from one another?  How well do today’s mechanisms cohere
>>> into an strong and effective global governance architecture?  This
>>> workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and related
>>> questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT
>>> global governance.
>>>
>>> Speakers
>>>
>>> Dr. William J. Drake  [organizer & moderator]
>>> International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division
>>> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>
>>> Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen
>>> Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications
>>> South Africa
>>>
>>> Mr. Alvaro Galvani
>>> Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
>>> Government of Brazil
>>>
>>> Mr. Markus Kummer
>>> Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society
>>> Switzerland
>>>
>>> Prof. Michael Latzer
>>> Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division
>>> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>
>>> Ms. Nermine El Saadany
>>> Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications and
>>> Information Technology
>>> Government of Egypt
>>>
>>> Mr. Thomas Schneider
>>> Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of
>>> Communications
>>> Government of Switzerland
>>>
>>> We are hoping for a lively interactive discussion with no serial talking
>>> head presentations of pre-prepared speeches and ample time for interventions
>>> from the floor and remote.  So if this is of interest, please do join us.
>>> I might add that this workshop is linked to a similarly constructed one I've
>>> proposed for Nairobi, although that one would have a somewhat different
>>> panel-line up and focus a bit more narrowly on global
>>> IG. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178  It
>>> should be interesting and instructive to address roughly the same issues in
>>> the two different venues with two different audiences…
>>> Best,
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> --Please note new email address--
>>>
>>> ***************************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> International Fellow
>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>>> www.williamdrake.org
>>> ****************************************************
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sala
>>
>> "Stillness in the midst of the noise".
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
Sala

"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Wed May 11 16:45:27 2011
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 13:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
Message-ID: <460239.54272.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Thanks to Dr. William Drake
I would like to join the workshop from Pakistan Remotely.
Thanks
Imran Ahmed Shah

On Thu, 12 May 2011 00:54 PKT Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:

>If each of in our regions make the request known through the ITU
>Pacific Rep, or ITU Asia etc, they can raise our request for remote
>participation. I will ask Gisa from this end.
>
>Sala
>
>On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As someone else who cannot come to Geneva, I hope so.  I expect ITU would be as attentive to the need to remote participation as the IGF and other organization involved in Internet governance.
>>
>> a.
>>
>> On 11 May 2011, at 14:57, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>
>>> This is excellent. Will there be remote participation?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:51 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> While I gather the level of meatspace participation by IGF types will be
>>>> rather low next week in Geneva, all those who are making the trip would be
>>>> most welcome to attend a workshop I've organized in the WSIS Forum.  There
>>>> will be remote participation available as well through the forum
>>>> site http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have
>>>> register for this), a twitter feed, and so on.
>>>> The workshop will be held in the Governing Body Room (seems appropriate)
>>>> of The International Labor Organization from 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May 2011.
>>>>  The idea is to contribute to the inchoate debate on what kinds of
>>>> institutional structures would be most appropriate in tackling key global
>>>> governance issues going forward.  For example, rather than just saying on
>>>> political/normative grounds that we prefer multistakeholderism or
>>>> intergovernmentalism, it would be useful to draw on the relevant analytical
>>>> literatures and practical experiences to arrive at some principled bases for
>>>> selecting institutional arrangements that are optimized to particular
>>>> functional problems.  This would seem to be of particular relevance at a
>>>> time when parties are proposing new or revised global governance
>>>> arrangements on various fronts, e.g. enhanced cooperation, the IANA
>>>> contract, the COE initiative on crossborder Internet harm, the governance of
>>>> the Internet of Things, the debate on revising the International Telecom
>>>> Regulations to cover the Internet, the development agenda discussion,
>>>> current intellectual property and digital trade initiatives, even the DC on
>>>> Rights and Principles initiative for that matter.  What models are best
>>>> suited to which of these issue-sets?
>>>>
>>>> Description follows:
>>>> Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance
>>>>
>>>> The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a
>>>> significant increase in the number and variety of governance
>>>> arrangements.  Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by
>>>> plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by
>>>> unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance,
>>>> multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of independent
>>>> practices.  These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the
>>>> collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes
>>>> they possess.
>>>>
>>>> How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative
>>>> merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance
>>>> challenges?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms of
>>>> cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency,
>>>> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness,
>>>> and public interest orientation?  Are there any generalizable lessons that
>>>> they could learn from one another?  How well do today’s mechanisms cohere
>>>> into an strong and effective global governance architecture?  This
>>>> workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and related
>>>> questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT
>>>> global governance.
>>>>
>>>> Speakers
>>>>
>>>> Dr. William J. Drake  [organizer & moderator]
>>>> International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division
>>>> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>>
>>>> Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen
>>>> Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications
>>>> South Africa
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Alvaro Galvani
>>>> Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
>>>> Government of Brazil
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Markus Kummer
>>>> Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society
>>>> Switzerland
>>>>
>>>> Prof. Michael Latzer
>>>> Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division
>>>> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>>
>>>> Ms. Nermine El Saadany
>>>> Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications and
>>>> Information Technology
>>>> Government of Egypt
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Thomas Schneider
>>>> Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of
>>>> Communications
>>>> Government of Switzerland
>>>>
>>>> We are hoping for a lively interactive discussion with no serial talking
>>>> head presentations of pre-prepared speeches and ample time for interventions
>>>> from the floor and remote.  So if this is of interest, please do join us.
>>>> I might add that this workshop is linked to a similarly constructed one I've
>>>> proposed for Nairobi, although that one would have a somewhat different
>>>> panel-line up and focus a bit more narrowly on global
>>>> IG. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178  It
>>>> should be interesting and instructive to address roughly the same issues in
>>>> the two different venues with two different audiences…
>>>> Best,
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> --Please note new email address--
>>>>
>>>> ***************************************************
>>>> William J. Drake
>>>> International Fellow
>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>>>> www.williamdrake.org
>>>> ****************************************************
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sala
>>>
>>> "Stillness in the midst of the noise".
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Sala
>
>"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de  Wed May 11 17:17:35 2011
From: Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 23:17:35 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Ohu
In-Reply-To:      <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF81@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.d
     e>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
    <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net>
    <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
    <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
    <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
    <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
    <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
    <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
    <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
    <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
    <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>
    <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>
    <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>
    <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>
    <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
    <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org>
    <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
    <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
    <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <"8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA
    31B"@marzouki.info>
    <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF81@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <12544.88.64.90.127.1305148655.squirrel@webmail.lrz.de>

Hallo Wolgang,
kommst Du voran? Wenn Du mir die Texte schickst, kümmere ich mich darum,
aus Deiner offiziellen Collaboratory-Adresse, die Emails zu zu schicken
(und natürlich zu verwalten). Ich könnte auch Ende nächster Woche einen
Reminder schicken.
BTW, wollen wir auch Leute wie Daniel Domscheit-Berg einladen? Ich bin mit
ihm bekannt und könnte den Kontakt herstellen, wenn gewünscht.
Viele Grüße,
Lorena
-- 
________________________________________________
Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A.
Wissenschaftliche Assistentin
Lehrstuhl für Politische Theorie (Prof. Dr. Karsten Fischer)
Geschwister-Scholl-Institut
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Oettingenstraße 67
80538 München
Tel.: +49 (0)89 2180 90 20
Fax: +49 (0)89 2180 90 22

Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A.
Research Associate
Chair of Political Theory,
Geschwister-Scholl-Institute
Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich
Oettingennstr. 67
80538 Munich
Germany
Phone: +49 (0)89 2180 90 20
Fax: +49 (0)89 2180 90 22

Am Mi, 11.05.2011, 14:19, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang":
> Ig you go to the G 20 website and click "The French Priorities" there is
> nothing related to the Internet. This is a an interesting gap.
> Intentionally? They did just forget it? Or they do not want to talk about
> the Internet with Brasil, India and China?   The G 20 summit is planned
> for Cannes in November 2011. Another nice "film festivalö" and an
> opportonity for a stresstext how serious MS in IG is taken by governments.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Meryem Marzouki
> Gesendet: Mi 11.05.2011 11:59
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: Re: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
>
>
>
> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
> Meryem
>
> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has
>> started.
>>
>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the
>> statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our
>> preferred group to address Internet policies.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>>
>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because,
>>> as
>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8
>>> will
>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>>> eG8 conclusions.
>>>
>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so
>>> far.
>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under
>>> the
>>> G8 and not the G20.
>>>
>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments
>>> from
>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>>
>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>>> http://www.g20-g8.com <http://www.g20-g8.com/> , and there's an English
>>> version available.
>>>
>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Meryem
>>>
>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>>
>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe I'm missing something....
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr
>>> <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/> >
>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org <http://www.iris.sgdg.org/> >
>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org
>>> <http://www.edri.org/> >
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de  Wed May 11 17:28:24 2011
From: Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 23:28:24 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Ohu
In-Reply-To: <12544.88.64.90.127.1305148655.squirrel@webmail.lrz.de>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net>
    <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net>
    <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
    <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net>
    <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost>
    <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net>
    <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org>
    <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org>
    <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net>
    <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org>
    <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu>
    <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org>
    <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch>
    <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org>
    <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch>
    <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info>
    <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <"8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA
    31B"@marzouki.info>
    <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF81@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
    <12544.88.64.90.127.1305148655.squirrel@webmail.lrz.de>
Message-ID: <12611.88.64.90.127.1305149304.squirrel@webmail.lrz.de>

I'm sorry, I did it again: I sent a message to the list, although it was a
private email. Please excuse, it won't happen anymore.
Regards,
Lorena
-- 
________________________________________________
Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A.
Wissenschaftliche Assistentin
Lehrstuhl für Politische Theorie (Prof. Dr. Karsten Fischer)
Geschwister-Scholl-Institut
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Oettingenstraße 67
80538 München
Tel.: +49 (0)89 2180 90 20
Fax: +49 (0)89 2180 90 22

Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A.
Research Associate
Chair of Political Theory,
Geschwister-Scholl-Institute
Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich
Oettingennstr. 67
80538 Munich
Germany
Phone: +49 (0)89 2180 90 20
Fax: +49 (0)89 2180 90 22

Am Mi, 11.05.2011, 23:17, schrieb Lorena Jaume-Palasi:
> Hallo Wolgang,
> kommst Du voran? Wenn Du mir die Texte schickst, kümmere ich mich darum,
> aus Deiner offiziellen Collaboratory-Adresse, die Emails zu zu schicken
> (und natürlich zu verwalten). Ich könnte auch Ende nächster Woche einen
> Reminder schicken.
> BTW, wollen wir auch Leute wie Daniel Domscheit-Berg einladen? Ich bin mit
> ihm bekannt und könnte den Kontakt herstellen, wenn gewünscht.
> Viele Grüße,
> Lorena
> --
> ________________________________________________
> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A.
> Wissenschaftliche Assistentin
> Lehrstuhl für Politische Theorie (Prof. Dr. Karsten Fischer)
> Geschwister-Scholl-Institut
> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
> Oettingenstraße 67
> 80538 München
> Tel.: +49 (0)89 2180 90 20
> Fax: +49 (0)89 2180 90 22
>
> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A.
> Research Associate
> Chair of Political Theory,
> Geschwister-Scholl-Institute
> Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich
> Oettingennstr. 67
> 80538 Munich
> Germany
> Phone: +49 (0)89 2180 90 20
> Fax: +49 (0)89 2180 90 22
>
> Am Mi, 11.05.2011, 14:19, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang":
>> Ig you go to the G 20 website and click "The French Priorities" there is
>> nothing related to the Internet. This is a an interesting gap.
>> Intentionally? They did just forget it? Or they do not want to talk
>> about
>> the Internet with Brasil, India and China?   The G 20 summit is planned
>> for Cannes in November 2011. Another nice "film festivalö" and an
>> opportonity for a stresstext how serious MS in IG is taken by
>> governments.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Meryem Marzouki
>> Gesendet: Mi 11.05.2011 11:59
>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Betreff: Re: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
>>
>>
>>
>> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
>> Meryem
>>
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has
>>> started.
>>>
>>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the
>>> statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our
>>> preferred group to address Internet policies.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>>>
>>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because,
>>>> as
>>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8
>>>> will
>>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>>>> eG8 conclusions.
>>>>
>>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so
>>>> far.
>>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November
>>>> in
>>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under
>>>> the
>>>> G8 and not the G20.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will
>>>> become
>>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues
>>>> should
>>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments
>>>> from
>>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and
>>>> Izumi
>>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>>>> http://www.g20-g8.com <http://www.g20-g8.com/> , and there's an
>>>> English
>>>> version available.
>>>>
>>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO
>>>> signatures
>>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Meryem
>>>>
>>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly
>>>>> declarations
>>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events
>>>>> in
>>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so,
>>>>> then
>>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe I'm missing something....
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr
>>>> <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/> >
>>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org <http://www.iris.sgdg.org/> >
>>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org
>>>> <http://www.edri.org/> >
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From avri at acm.org  Wed May 11 17:48:54 2011
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:48:54 -0400
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <0C771AFA-4BA0-447A-A17E-B0514FE47B37@marzouki.info>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <Iuibp5vZI8vNFAEV@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79B23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-!
  ! ! ! 1475755DA31B@marzouki.info> <BANLkTi=aAqz0QSDTB1dHdGiU78DT7rn66g@mail.gmail.com> <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com> <A2AEF699-0646-4825-A7A9-EBD256E8FAAE@marzouki.info> <8283BB98-744C-4DAC-A55A-B3118E6B4733@ella.com> <0C771AFA-4BA0-447A-A17E-B0514FE47B37@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <44A58EB0-E0C6-4903-B6BA-F8FE43DDE309@acm.org>


hi,

some more info from ISOC-NY's web site

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=2058

a.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From olgacavalli at gmail.com  Wed May 11 23:19:24 2011
From: olgacavalli at gmail.com (Olga Cavalli)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 20:19:24 -0700
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikca=huY2--Q=XRNRZuQAoiSiaZWQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Bill, I will not be in Geneva but will try to attend remotely.
Best
Olga

2011/5/11 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>

> Hello,
>
> While I gather the level of meatspace participation by IGF types will be
> rather low next week in Geneva, all those who are making the trip would be
> most welcome to attend a workshop I've organized in the WSIS Forum.  There
> will be remote participation available as well through the forum site
> http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have register
> for this), a twitter feed, and so on.
>
> The workshop will be held in the Governing Body Room (seems appropriate)
> of The International Labor Organization from 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May 2011.
>  The idea is to contribute to the inchoate debate on what kinds of
> institutional structures would be most appropriate in tackling key global
> governance issues going forward.  For example, rather than just saying on
> political/normative grounds that we prefer multistakeholderism or
> intergovernmentalism, it would be useful to draw on the relevant analytical
> literatures and practical experiences to arrive at some principled bases for
> selecting institutional arrangements that are optimized to particular
> functional problems.  This would seem to be of particular relevance at a
> time when parties are proposing new or revised global governance
> arrangements on various fronts, e.g. enhanced cooperation, the IANA
> contract, the COE initiative on crossborder Internet harm, the governance of
> the Internet of Things, the debate on revising the International Telecom
> Regulations to cover the Internet, the development agenda discussion,
> current intellectual property and digital trade initiatives, even the DC on
> Rights and Principles initiative for that matter.  What models are best
> suited to which of these issue-sets?
>
>
> Description follows:
>
> *Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance*
>
> The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a
> significant increase in the number and variety of governance
> arrangements.  Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by
> plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by
> unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance,
> multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of independent
> practices.  These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the
> collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes
> they possess.
>
> How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative
> merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance
> challenges?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms of
> cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency,
> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness,
> and public interest orientation?  Are there any generalizable lessons that
> they could learn from one another?  How well do today’s mechanisms cohere
> into an strong and effective global governance architecture?  This
> workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and related
> questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT
> global governance.
>
> *Speakers*
>
> Dr. William J. Drake  [organizer & moderator]
> International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division
> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>
> Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen
> Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications
> South Africa
>
> Mr. Alvaro Galvani
> Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
> Government of Brazil
>
> Mr. Markus Kummer
> Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society
> Switzerland
>
> Prof. Michael Latzer
> Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division
> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>
> Ms. Nermine El Saadany
> Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications
> and Information Technology
> Government of Egypt
>
> Mr. Thomas Schneider
> Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of
> Communications
> Government of Switzerland
>
>
> We are hoping for a lively interactive discussion with no serial talking
> head presentations of pre-prepared speeches and ample time for interventions
> from the floor and remote.  So if this is of interest, please do join us.
>
> I might add that this workshop is linked to a similarly constructed one
> I've proposed for Nairobi, although that one would have a somewhat different
> panel-line up and focus a bit more narrowly on global IG.
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178  It
> should be interesting and instructive to address roughly the same issues in
> the two different venues with two different audiences…
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> --Please note new email address--
>
> ***************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch
> www.williamdrake.org
> ****************************************************
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110511/2d15e20f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From odamyte at gmail.com  Wed May 11 23:21:20 2011
From: odamyte at gmail.com (Jacob B. Odame)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 03:21:20 +0000
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi

You can register for the remote participation at the link
http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html.

Thanks,
Jacob

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is excellent. Will there be remote participation?
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:51 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > While I gather the level of meatspace participation by IGF types will be
> > rather low next week in Geneva, all those who are making the trip would
> be
> > most welcome to attend a workshop I've organized in the WSIS Forum.
>  There
> > will be remote participation available as well through the forum
> > site http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have
> > register for this), a twitter feed, and so on.
> > The workshop will be held in the Governing Body Room (seems appropriate)
> > of The International Labor Organization from 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May
> 2011.
> >  The idea is to contribute to the inchoate debate on what kinds of
> > institutional structures would be most appropriate in tackling key global
> > governance issues going forward.  For example, rather than just saying on
> > political/normative grounds that we prefer multistakeholderism or
> > intergovernmentalism, it would be useful to draw on the relevant
> analytical
> > literatures and practical experiences to arrive at some principled bases
> for
> > selecting institutional arrangements that are optimized to particular
> > functional problems.  This would seem to be of particular relevance at a
> > time when parties are proposing new or revised global governance
> > arrangements on various fronts, e.g. enhanced cooperation, the IANA
> > contract, the COE initiative on crossborder Internet harm, the governance
> of
> > the Internet of Things, the debate on revising the International Telecom
> > Regulations to cover the Internet, the development agenda discussion,
> > current intellectual property and digital trade initiatives, even the DC
> on
> > Rights and Principles initiative for that matter.  What models are best
> > suited to which of these issue-sets?
> >
> > Description follows:
> > Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance
> >
> > The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a
> > significant increase in the number and variety of governance
> > arrangements.  Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by
> > plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by
> > unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance,
> > multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of
> independent
> > practices.  These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the
> > collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes
> > they possess.
> >
> > How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative
> > merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance
> > challenges?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms
> of
> > cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency,
> > transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness,
> > and public interest orientation?  Are there any generalizable lessons
> that
> > they could learn from one another?  How well do today’s mechanisms cohere
> > into an strong and effective global governance architecture?  This
> > workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and
> related
> > questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT
> > global governance.
> >
> > Speakers
> >
> > Dr. William J. Drake  [organizer & moderator]
> > International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division
> > Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
> > University of Zurich, Switzerland
> >
> > Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen
> > Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications
> > South Africa
> >
> > Mr. Alvaro Galvani
> > Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
> > Government of Brazil
> >
> > Mr. Markus Kummer
> > Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society
> > Switzerland
> >
> > Prof. Michael Latzer
> > Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division
> > Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
> > University of Zurich, Switzerland
> >
> > Ms. Nermine El Saadany
> > Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications
> and
> > Information Technology
> > Government of Egypt
> >
> > Mr. Thomas Schneider
> > Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of
> > Communications
> > Government of Switzerland
> >
> > We are hoping for a lively interactive discussion with no serial talking
> > head presentations of pre-prepared speeches and ample time for
> interventions
> > from the floor and remote.  So if this is of interest, please do join us.
> > I might add that this workshop is linked to a similarly constructed one
> I've
> > proposed for Nairobi, although that one would have a somewhat different
> > panel-line up and focus a bit more narrowly on global
> > IG.
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178
>   It
> > should be interesting and instructive to address roughly the same issues
> in
> > the two different venues with two different audiences…
> > Best,
> > Bill
> >
> > --Please note new email address--
> >
> > ***************************************************
> > William J. Drake
> > International Fellow
> > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> > University of Zurich, Switzerland
> > william.drake at uzh.ch
> > www.williamdrake.org
> > ****************************************************
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sala
>
> "Stillness in the midst of the noise".
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Jacob B.Odame
http://www.linkedin.com/in/peejake
http://twitter.com/peejake
Blog: http://ict4dfootprint.wordpress.com/
Skype: peejake
Ph(Ghana): +233 24 2505043
Phone(US):+1-740-591-6681
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/59dc3120/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed May 11 23:25:33 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:25:33 +0900
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikca=huY2--Q=XRNRZuQAoiSiaZWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTikca=huY2--Q=XRNRZuQAoiSiaZWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimSXgWLwD+SfRWAtrmnzA197=KOOw@mail.gmail.com>

I'll be in Geneva (or France... no hotels in Geneva next week, worst
I've seen it for hotel availability, ridiculous) and will try to be
there (9 am meeting, terrible...)

OK... not being serious.  Serious:

Bill wrote:

> There
> will be remote participation available as well through the forum
> site http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have
> register for this), a twitter feed, and so on.

Adam




On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Bill, I will not be in Geneva but will try to attend remotely.
> Best
> Olga
>
> 2011/5/11 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>>
>> Hello,
>> While I gather the level of meatspace participation by IGF types will be
>> rather low next week in Geneva, all those who are making the trip would be
>> most welcome to attend a workshop I've organized in the WSIS Forum.  There
>> will be remote participation available as well through the forum
>> site http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html (it seems you have
>> register for this), a twitter feed, and so on.
>> The workshop will be held in the Governing Body Room (seems appropriate)
>> of The International Labor Organization from 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May 2011.
>>  The idea is to contribute to the inchoate debate on what kinds of
>> institutional structures would be most appropriate in tackling key global
>> governance issues going forward.  For example, rather than just saying on
>> political/normative grounds that we prefer multistakeholderism or
>> intergovernmentalism, it would be useful to draw on the relevant analytical
>> literatures and practical experiences to arrive at some principled bases for
>> selecting institutional arrangements that are optimized to particular
>> functional problems.  This would seem to be of particular relevance at a
>> time when parties are proposing new or revised global governance
>> arrangements on various fronts, e.g. enhanced cooperation, the IANA
>> contract, the COE initiative on crossborder Internet harm, the governance of
>> the Internet of Things, the debate on revising the International Telecom
>> Regulations to cover the Internet, the development agenda discussion,
>> current intellectual property and digital trade initiatives, even the DC on
>> Rights and Principles initiative for that matter.  What models are best
>> suited to which of these issue-sets?
>>
>> Description follows:
>> Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance
>>
>> The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a
>> significant increase in the number and variety of governance
>> arrangements.  Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by
>> plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by
>> unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance,
>> multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of independent
>> practices.  These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the
>> collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes
>> they possess.
>>
>> How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative
>> merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance
>> challenges?  What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms of
>> cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency,
>> transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness,
>> and public interest orientation?  Are there any generalizable lessons that
>> they could learn from one another?  How well do today’s mechanisms cohere
>> into an strong and effective global governance architecture?  This
>> workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and related
>> questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT
>> global governance.
>>
>> Speakers
>>
>> Dr. William J. Drake  [organizer & moderator]
>> International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division
>> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>
>> Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications
>> South Africa
>>
>> Mr. Alvaro Galvani
>> Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
>> Government of Brazil
>>
>> Mr. Markus Kummer
>> Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society
>> Switzerland
>>
>> Prof. Michael Latzer
>> Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division
>> Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>
>> Ms. Nermine El Saadany
>> Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications
>> and Information Technology
>> Government of Egypt
>>
>> Mr. Thomas Schneider
>> Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of
>> Communications
>> Government of Switzerland
>>
>> We are hoping for a lively interactive discussion with no serial talking
>> head presentations of pre-prepared speeches and ample time for interventions
>> from the floor and remote.  So if this is of interest, please do join us.
>> I might add that this workshop is linked to a similarly constructed one
>> I've proposed for Nairobi, although that one would have a somewhat different
>> panel-line up and focus a bit more narrowly on global
>> IG. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178  It
>> should be interesting and instructive to address roughly the same issues in
>> the two different venues with two different audiences…
>> Best,
>> Bill
>>
>> --Please note new email address--
>>
>> ***************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow
>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>> www.williamdrake.org
>> ****************************************************
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed May 11 23:53:17 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:23:17 +0530
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <4DCAC239.5050606@wzb.eu>
References: <4DBFA6B4.7090503@itforchange.net> <4DBFEC0E.3060700@itforchange.net> <20110504100446.90D2115C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DC132B4.4000901@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4DC24037.20602@itforchange.net> <4DC25516.9080904@gmx.net> <c9f1b79e1d468f48e34d9e01bf9fdd3e@localhost> <4DC64F72.4030809@itforchange.net> <F8ED1999-9924-4F86-BE4A-FD09B5DB6D01@acm.org> <4DC7986B.5040501@wzb.eu> <4DC8E8CC.7020203@ciroap.org> <4DC9005C.6070100@itforchange.net> <7F523250-BD0A-4BFA-A256-7672ED5B6D14@acm.org> <4DC938C1.1040903@itforchange.net> <4DC93A88.6020602@wzb.eu> <4DCA3729.40202@ciroap.org> <34C3B4A6-A068-4B34-A6A3-5A0A0A4C12C5@uzh.ch> <4DCA3FD6.7060208@ciroap.org> <A4061D13-85D0-4899-97BB-FC0BAE78D7FB@uzh.ch> <E2459213-0CE2-4964-9ECB-B173287157E1@marzouki.info> <4DCA5D63.2080206@wzb.eu> <8C9A3D70-D378-4748-8DFF-1475755DA31B@marzouki.info> <4DCAC239.5050606@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4DCB59AD.3090104@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 11 May 2011 10:37 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Sorry, I was offline most of the day. Marilia said it all in her reply:
>
> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, 
> I believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we 
> are advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal 
> footing and genuinely multistakeholder.

I agree it doesnt.

UN based systems especially with the innovations that WSIS has made 
possible (but which have not been allowed to be used appropriately by 
strong vested interests) is the most appropriate way to go forward.  But 
for that we in the civil society should help develop the whole set of 
mandated processes in a manner that they can  fulfil the role of 
democratic and multistakeholder global Internet policy devleopment. It 
is civil society's special responsibility to step up and provide viable 
models that satisfy the urgent requirements for global Internet policy 
regime sin many areas. Unfortunately, we have been as active in this 
respect as we owe to be. Maybe we can now... Incidentally, Marcilia's 
organisation and mine are proposing a workshop in Nairobi on 
institutional gaps in the global Internet policy structure. parminder
>
> While G20 would be marginally more representative it is not 
> categorically different from the G8. I wouldn't want them either to 
> develop Internet policies on our behalf without consulting/integrating 
> us.
>
> jeanette
>
> On 11.05.2011 11:59, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
>> Meryem
>>
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has 
>>> started.
>>>
>>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the 
>>> statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our 
>>> preferred group to address Internet policies.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>>>
>>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely 
>>>> because, as
>>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 
>>>> will
>>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>>>> eG8 conclusions.
>>>>
>>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so 
>>>> far.
>>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 
>>>> November in
>>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held 
>>>> under the
>>>> G8 and not the G20.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will 
>>>> become
>>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues 
>>>> should
>>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments 
>>>> from
>>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and 
>>>> Izumi
>>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>>>> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>>>>
>>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO 
>>>> signatures
>>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Meryem
>>>>
>>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. 
>>>>>> So I
>>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly 
>>>>> declarations
>>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may 
>>>>>
>>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international 
>>>>> events in
>>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, 
>>>>> then
>>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info<mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr<http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org<http://www.edri.org>
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director
IT for Change
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net/>
Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/a799e9be/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/a799e9be/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu May 12 01:29:25 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:29:25 +0800
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian proposal
 towards an IGF 2.0"
Message-ID: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>

The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
"Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
that the three be merged.

The ICC/BASIS one is "a roundtable workshop format that includes the
full range of stakeholders to discuss a broad range of ideas and provide
an opportunity to exchange perspectives on proposed improvements". 
Marilia and I both strongly felt that merging with such a workshop would
result in a loss of focus and weaker (or more likely no) outcomes.

The ISOC workshop actually does sound more interesting (to me), but it
is very much more process-oriented rather than addressing specific
proposals for improvement.  I think that the ISOC one, like ours, would
be better stand-alone.

Marilia and I, as co-organisers of the workshop for the IGC, were
invited to discuss the proposed merger with the others yesterday in a
teleconference.  We expressed our views strongly, and I hope
effectively.  But we came away promising to consult with this group
about whether a merger could be considered under the following conditions:

1. Workshop would be expanded to double-length.
2. IGC (naturally, I guess) will have an equal say in all organisational
decisions.

The three workshop proposals are:

http://mini.me.my/10 (IGC workshop)
http://mini.me.my/11 (ISOC workshop)
http://mini.me.my/12 (ICC/BASIS workshop)

So please let us know your thoughts before the end of the week, in order
that Marilia (who will be in Geneva) can present them to the others
ahead of the pseudo-MAG meeting.

Thanks.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator*
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Empowering Tomorrow's Consumers
CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong*

Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on
the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
_http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/68f42439/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/68f42439/attachment.bin>

From avri at ella.com  Thu May 12 01:42:59 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 01:42:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com>

Thanks.

Looks great

a.

On 11 May 2011, at 23:21, Jacob B. Odame wrote:

> Hi 
> 
> You can register for the remote participation at the link  http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Jacob

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu May 12 01:45:25 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 08:45:25 +0300
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimKMcv5PEJWbfdzvVHCLUJSVwGVcA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting that
> the three be merged.

I would be happy with that outcome.

>
> The ICC/BASIS one is "a roundtable workshop format that includes the full
> range of stakeholders to discuss a broad range of ideas and provide an
> opportunity to exchange perspectives on proposed improvements".  Marilia and
> I both strongly felt that merging with such a workshop would result in a
> loss of focus and weaker (or more likely no) outcomes.
>
> The ISOC workshop actually does sound more interesting (to me), but it is
> very much more process-oriented rather than addressing specific proposals
> for improvement.  I think that the ISOC one, like ours, would be better
> stand-alone.
>
> Marilia and I, as co-organisers of the workshop for the IGC, were invited to
> discuss the proposed merger with the others yesterday in a teleconference.
> We expressed our views strongly, and I hope effectively.  But we came away
> promising to consult with this group about whether a merger could be
> considered under the following conditions:
>
> 1. Workshop would be expanded to double-length.
> 2. IGC (naturally, I guess) will have an equal say in all organisational
> decisions.
>
> The three workshop proposals are:
>
> http://mini.me.my/10 (IGC workshop)

How is this one about "Managing Critical Internet Resources"?  Isn't
it Taking Stock anbd Way forward like the others?


> http://mini.me.my/11 (ISOC workshop)
> http://mini.me.my/12 (ICC/BASIS workshop)
>
> So please let us know your thoughts before the end of the week, in order
> that Marilia (who will be in Geneva) can present them to the others ahead of
> the pseudo-MAG meeting.

done!


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu May 12 02:21:15 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:21:15 +0800
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimKMcv5PEJWbfdzvVHCLUJSVwGVcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <BANLkTimKMcv5PEJWbfdzvVHCLUJSVwGVcA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DCB7C5B.3050503@ciroap.org>

On 12/05/11 13:45, McTim wrote:
> How is this one about "Managing Critical Internet Resources"? Isn't
> it Taking Stock anbd Way forward like the others?

Yes, that was just a mistake.  Originally there was no "Taking Stock"
option, I didn't notice they'd added it.  I have asked the Secretariat
to change the category, but as usual have received no reply or action.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator*
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Empowering Tomorrow's Consumers
CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong*

Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on
the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
_http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/af3f6e0a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/af3f6e0a/attachment.bin>

From divina.meigs at orange.fr  Thu May 12 02:56:32 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 08:56:32 +0200
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
Message-ID: <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>


Hello

To me it seems we have to take a step at a time. The E-G8 starts soon, it
probably will pave the way for an E-G20... If we let the precedent happen
without protest, it will be harder to argue later for entry in E-G20.

divina

Le 11/05/11 14:36, « Avri Doria » <avri at ella.com> a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> I am not sure I understand the suggestion.  Is that that we suggest that they
> not have a eG8 but have an 'eG20' instead?
> 
> As far as I understand the eG8 is already planned and the some
> people/organizations already have their invitations.  We want invitations for
> civil society becasue we want a seat at any table where these issues are being
> discussed on a global basis.
> 
> The issue of G8 versus G20 would be a different one and one that at least for
> the moment is a bit late in relations to this event.
> 
> Of course if there is a 'eG20', we should have argue for a seat at that table.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 11 May 2011, at 05:24, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> 
>> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I
>> believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are
>> advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and
>> genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded
>> from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a
>> way of political pressure.
>> 
>> Marília
>> 
>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info>
>> wrote:
>> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
>> Meryem
>> 
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has started.
>>> 
>>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the statement
>>> if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our preferred group to
>>> address Internet policies.
>>> 
>>> jeanette
>>> 
>>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>>> 
>>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
>>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
>>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>>>> eG8 conclusions.
>>>> 
>>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
>>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
>>>> G8 and not the G20.
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
>>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>>> 
>>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>>>> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>>>> 
>>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Meryem
>>>> 
>>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-
>>>>> may
>>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or maybe I'm missing somethingŠ.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org>
>>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>> 
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From pouzin at well.com  Thu May 12 03:25:55 2011
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:25:55 +0200
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian proposal
 towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinAE3xAmZugDs+M1Pss8vSZCLVYBg@mail.gmail.com>

Warning. ICC/BASIS and ISOC just want to snow the serious issues. A Sesame
street kind of nice talk. Don't merge.
- - -

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>  The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting that
> the three be merged.
>
> The ICC/BASIS one is "a roundtable workshop format that includes the full
> range of stakeholders to discuss a broad range of ideas and provide an
> opportunity to exchange perspectives on proposed improvements".  Marilia and
> I both strongly felt that merging with such a workshop would result in a
> loss of focus and weaker (or more likely no) outcomes.
>
> The ISOC workshop actually does sound more interesting (to me), but it is
> very much more process-oriented rather than addressing specific proposals
> for improvement.  I think that the ISOC one, like ours, would be better
> stand-alone.
>
> Marilia and I, as co-organisers of the workshop for the IGC, were invited
> to discuss the proposed merger with the others yesterday in a
> teleconference.  We expressed our views strongly, and I hope effectively.
> But we came away promising to consult with this group about whether a merger
> could be considered under the following conditions:
>
> 1. Workshop would be expanded to double-length.
> 2. IGC (naturally, I guess) will have an equal say in all organisational
> decisions.
>
> The three workshop proposals are:
>
> http://mini.me.my/10 (IGC workshop)
> http://mini.me.my/11 (ISOC workshop)
> http://mini.me.my/12 (ICC/BASIS workshop)
>
> So please let us know your thoughts before the end of the week, in order
> that Marilia (who will be in Geneva) can present them to the others ahead of
> the pseudo-MAG meeting.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong*
>
> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
> groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the
> issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
> *http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress*
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/a586e083/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From nb at bollow.ch  Thu May 12 04:53:58 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 10:53:58 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> (message from Jeremy Malcolm on
	Thu, 12 May 2011 13:29:25 +0800)
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
> that the three be merged.

Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?

How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
desires of Marilia and yourself?

Greetings,
Norbert
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu May 12 04:56:29 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:56:29 +0800
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>

On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
>> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
>> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
>> that the three be merged.
> Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>
> How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
> desires of Marilia and yourself?

A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
"all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
difficult to speculate.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator*
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong*

Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on
the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
_http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/7eb4ab37/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/7eb4ab37/attachment.bin>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Thu May 12 05:56:22 2011
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:56:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com> <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com>
Message-ID: <B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch>

Hi

Glad there's some interest in remote participation in our workshop.  I just spoke with the ITU & IGF secretariats to double check about remote participation.  Re: the former, as is explained on the registration page, http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Register/RemoteParticipationRegistration.aspx  the options are:

*Webcast, registration not required

*Adobe Connect Conference Rooms, registration required

*Twitter is #WSIS. If you wanted tweets to appear in the forum's site you'd have to register.


Re: the latter, while there may also be links from the WF site, it seems that IGF will offer RM in the usual fashion off its site.

The list of registered participants is still not for public consumption but there are now over 1,000 attendees, no way to know how many of these are for the iGF sessions.

Best,

Bill



On May 12, 2011, at 7:42 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Thanks.
> 
> Looks great
> 
> a.
> 
> On 11 May 2011, at 23:21, Jacob B. Odame wrote:
> 
>> Hi 
>> 
>> You can register for the remote participation at the link  http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html. 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Jacob
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/14989928/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From nb at bollow.ch  Thu May 12 06:32:11 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:32:11 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> (message from Jeremy Malcolm on
	Thu, 12 May 2011 16:56:29 +0800)
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
> 
> >> that the three be merged.
> > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
> >
> > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
> > desires of Marilia and yourself?
> 
> A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
> have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
> teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
> "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
> the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
> more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
> difficult to speculate.

Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
debate for those who wish to participate in that.)

Greetings,
Norbert
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu May 12 06:27:05 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:27:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com>
	<B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=ELtAWFGd-00Z0M4LhJYHyBFNAqA@mail.gmail.com>

I have this funny feeling that many of these participants of the WSIS
Forum 2011 might want to experience the IGF consultations?

I will be there!

Best

Fouad

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:56 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> Hi
> Glad there's some interest in remote participation in our workshop.  I just
> spoke with the ITU & IGF secretariats to double check about remote
> participation.  Re: the former, as is explained on the registration
> page, http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Register/RemoteParticipationRegistration.aspx  the
> options are:
> *Webcast, registration not required
> *Adobe Connect Conference Rooms, registration required
> *Twitter is #WSIS. If you wanted tweets to appear in the forum's site you'd
> have to register.
>
> Re: the latter, while there may also be links from the WF site, it seems
> that IGF will offer RM in the usual fashion off its site.
> The list of registered participants is still not for public consumption but
> there are now over 1,000 attendees, no way to know how many of these are for
> the iGF sessions.
> Best,
> Bill
>
>
> On May 12, 2011, at 7:42 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Thanks.
>
> Looks great
>
> a.
>
> On 11 May 2011, at 23:21, Jacob B. Odame wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> You can register for the remote participation at the link
>  http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jacob
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu May 12 06:35:37 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 22:35:37 +1200
Subject: [governance] New Research on likely increases in 4G mobile capacity
 relative to 3G
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=3r3gQ+6JB9d5kwimNoRkB4JJQUg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Ofcom has today published new research on the likely increases in 4G
mobile capacity relative to 3G. The research indicates that early 4G
mobile networks with standard configurations are likely be 3.3 times
more spectrally efficient than today’s standard 3G networks. It is
anticipated that this efficiency will increase to approximately 5.5
times by 2020.

The research is available here:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/technology-research/2011/4G-Capacity-Gains/

Kind Regards,



-- 
Sala

"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu May 12 07:02:08 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 23:02:08 +1200
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=ELtAWFGd-00Z0M4LhJYHyBFNAqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com>
	<B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTi=ELtAWFGd-00Z0M4LhJYHyBFNAqA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikG-3JRVXa+7ty1BTPRoPRmCC=WJw@mail.gmail.com>

I am looking forward to participating remotely.

Sala

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have this funny feeling that many of these participants of the WSIS
> Forum 2011 might want to experience the IGF consultations?
>
> I will be there!
>
> Best
>
> Fouad
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:56 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>> Hi
>> Glad there's some interest in remote participation in our workshop.  I just
>> spoke with the ITU & IGF secretariats to double check about remote
>> participation.  Re: the former, as is explained on the registration
>> page, http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Register/RemoteParticipationRegistration.aspx  the
>> options are:
>> *Webcast, registration not required
>> *Adobe Connect Conference Rooms, registration required
>> *Twitter is #WSIS. If you wanted tweets to appear in the forum's site you'd
>> have to register.
>>
>> Re: the latter, while there may also be links from the WF site, it seems
>> that IGF will offer RM in the usual fashion off its site.
>> The list of registered participants is still not for public consumption but
>> there are now over 1,000 attendees, no way to know how many of these are for
>> the iGF sessions.
>> Best,
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> On May 12, 2011, at 7:42 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Looks great
>>
>> a.
>>
>> On 11 May 2011, at 23:21, Jacob B. Odame wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> You can register for the remote participation at the link
>>  http://wsisforum2011.pathable.com/index.html.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jacob
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
Sala

"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu May 12 07:45:28 2011
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 07:45:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikG-3JRVXa+7ty1BTPRoPRmCC=WJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch> <BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com> <8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com>
 <B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch> <BANLkTi=ELtAWFGd-00Z0M4LhJYHyBFNAqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTikG-3JRVXa+7ty1BTPRoPRmCC=WJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTim0bzLPyPeaR2G0S-q6J51DArXdVg@mail.gmail.com>

In case you are counting I have registered for remote participation too.
Deirdre
PS That's at least 2 remote small islands on opposite sides of the world :-)

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/8cd04c1d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu May 12 08:55:14 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 08:55:14 -0400
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>,<C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

I agree with Divina.

An eG20 may not be scheduled for November already; but so what.

In general, re G8 vs G20 vs UN; obviously UN is most inclusive.  

But G20 does include ~66% global population, so in general it is far better for IGC to focus some energy on than G8. 

But that is a next step.

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Divina MEIGS [divina.meigs at orange.fr]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 2:56 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

Hello

To me it seems we have to take a step at a time. The E-G8 starts soon, it
probably will pave the way for an E-G20... If we let the precedent happen
without protest, it will be harder to argue later for entry in E-G20.

divina

Le 11/05/11 14:36, « Avri Doria » <avri at ella.com> a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> I am not sure I understand the suggestion.  Is that that we suggest that they
> not have a eG8 but have an 'eG20' instead?
>
> As far as I understand the eG8 is already planned and the some
> people/organizations already have their invitations.  We want invitations for
> civil society becasue we want a seat at any table where these issues are being
> discussed on a global basis.
>
> The issue of G8 versus G20 would be a different one and one that at least for
> the moment is a bit late in relations to this event.
>
> Of course if there is a 'eG20', we should have argue for a seat at that table.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 11 May 2011, at 05:24, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
>> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I
>> believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are
>> advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and
>> genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded
>> from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a
>> way of political pressure.
>>
>> Marília
>>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info>
>> wrote:
>> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
>> Meryem
>>
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has started.
>>>
>>> I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the statement
>>> if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our preferred group to
>>> address Internet policies.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>>>>
>>>> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because, as
>>>> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>>>> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8 will
>>>> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>>>> eG8 conclusions.
>>>>
>>>> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>>>> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so far.
>>>> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>>>> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>>>> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under the
>>>> G8 and not the G20.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>>>> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>>>> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>>>> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>>>> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments from
>>>> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>>>> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>>>> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>>>> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>>>>
>>>> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>>>> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Meryem
>>>>
>>>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>>>>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>>>>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>>>>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>>>>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>>>>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>>>>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>>>>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>>>>> And the news reportage on this one
>>>>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-
>>>>> may
>>>>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>>>>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>>>>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>>>>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>>>>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>>>>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>>>>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>>>>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>>>>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>>>>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe I'm missing somethingŠ.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>>> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org>
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu May 12 08:59:54 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>

Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our
main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
proposal.



Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a
revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without
reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex:
CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential
shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business sector
and the technical community, in my view.



A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas,
reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet
for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.



The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
workshop, with half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview
of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the
proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be dedicated to
focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don’t know if that
would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this would be
in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by
political considerations.



In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups
will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF
workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
improvement?



Best,

Marília

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> > >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> > >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> > >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
> >
> > >> that the three be merged.
> > > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
> > >
> > > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
> > > desires of Marilia and yourself?
> >
> > A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
> > have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
> > teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
> > "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
> > the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
> > more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
> > difficult to speculate.
>
> Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
> debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
> support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
> you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
> the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
> approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
> at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
> other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
> non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
> with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
> debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/bcd7ce78/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu May 12 09:00:22 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:00:22 +0300
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
 <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
> I agree with Divina.
>
> An eG20 may not be scheduled for November already; but so what.
>
> In general, re G8 vs G20 vs UN; obviously UN is most inclusive.
>
> But G20 does include ~66% global population, so in general it is far better for IGC to focus some energy on than G8.
>
> But that is a next step.


whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE
activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for
potential IG bodies???

Perhaps the coordinators could take this up?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu May 12 09:14:22 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:14:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>,<BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BE3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

My suggestion:

1) We are happy to cooperate (really ; ) in merger discussions, assuming a willingness of all parties to propose making this discussion a 2 part extended workshop session/key feature of upcoming IGF meeting

2) Merged title 'Reflection on the Indian Proposal towards an Improved IGF 2.0'

3) Part I: General recriminations/improving IGF discussion, ICC and ISOC can lead, IGC participates 
     Part II: The Indian Proposal Towards an IGF 2.0, IGC leads, ICC and ISOC participate

4) If ok by ICC and ISOC, great, if not well we tried and demonstrated our - flexibility.

Lee


________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 8:59 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow
Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0"

Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our proposal.

Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex: CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business sector and the technical community, in my view.

A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas, reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.

The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer workshop, with half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be dedicated to focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don’t know if that would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this would be in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by political considerations.

In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF improvement?

Best,
Marília

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
> On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
> >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
>
> >> that the three be merged.
> > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
> >
> > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
> > desires of Marilia and yourself?
>
> A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
> have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
> teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
> "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
> the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
> more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
> difficult to speculate.

Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
debate for those who wish to participate in that.)

Greetings,
Norbert
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




--
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From avri at ella.com  Thu May 12 09:24:21 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:24:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A441065D-647A-437C-BC84-572D8C7AB43C@ella.com>

Hi,

I think Louis  explained the motivation for the merger quite well.


On 12 May 2011, at 03:25, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:

>  ICC/BASIS and ISOC just want to snow the serious issues. A Sesame street kind of nice talk. Don't merge.


Re;  On 12 May 2011, at 08:59, Marilia Maciel wrote:

> In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF improvement?

>From the vantage point of someone  who has watched the process for many years, I think this is an important caution.  The other protagonists, will be on chat together and will be working to reinforce each others comments, thus you will face a well spoken wall of opposition.  The civil society reps are often more individualistic and are not as well coordinated as supporting each others positions in rapid succession.

In every break, the private sector and the internet community caucus and plan their strategies for the next session.  Often the civil society participants are more involved in being upset at each other for one reason or another. 

Or at least that is how it looked from my vantage point.

My recommendation, coordinate and stick to your  positions.   Consider that is is better to have you workshop kicked out and protest than it is to have it turned in regurgitated pabulum.

a.


a.____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From avri at ella.com  Thu May 12 09:29:36 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:29:36 -0400
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com> <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B14F66EA-B604-431C-A71A-7BEEE6BDA408@ella.com>


On 12 May 2011, at 09:00, McTim wrote:

> 
> whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE
> activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for
> potential IG bodies???


The so called actual internet governance activities are also political affairs and also largely controlled by business interests.   And tell me, where is it written that these activities should have a monopoly, especially if that monopoly is rigged.

Civil society needs to participate in any and all activities and needs to stand up to the business and government interests in all fora..  Are you suggesting that civil society leave certain venues only to business interests?

I think civil society must participate in all of it and not limit itself to a few venues.

a.____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu May 12 09:39:40 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 22:39:40 +0900
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
  proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <A441065D-647A-437C-BC84-572D8C7AB43C@ella.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
 <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
 <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
 <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <A441065D-647A-437C-BC84-572D8C7AB43C@ella.com>
Message-ID: <p06240823c9f191eef102@[192.168.1.160]>

Think there are more workshop proposals this year 
than ever, and the open forums, coalitions etc 
not in yet.  And (Avri may remember better) think 
the number of workshop rooms may be limited and 
the MAG seems to be trying to have less not more 
on the agenda.

A long winded way of saying, we may have to merge 
more then ever this year.  If this is a key theme 
for the caucus, and I think it is, then be ready 
to merge everything else: protect this one and 
give up independence on others.  Perhaps our MAG 
members could do something?

Adam



>Hi,
>
>I think Louis  explained the motivation for the merger quite well.
>
>
>On 12 May 2011, at 03:25, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>
>>   ICC/BASIS and ISOC just want to snow the 
>>serious issues. A Sesame street kind of nice 
>>talk. Don't merge.
>
>
>Re;  On 12 May 2011, at 08:59, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
>>  In any case, we should just be aware that if 
>>we do not merge, other groups will probably try 
>>to impinge us with the political burden of 
>>non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. 
>>There are always several IGF workshops on NN, 
>>youth, etc. So why there can¹t be 2 or 3 
>>workshops on IGF improvement?
>
>>From the vantage point of someone  who has 
>>watched the process for many years, I think 
>>this is an important caution.  The other 
>>protagonists, will be on chat together and will 
>>be working to reinforce each others comments, 
>>thus you will face a well spoken wall of 
>>opposition.  The civil society reps are often 
>>more individualistic and are not as well 
>>coordinated as supporting each others positions 
>>in rapid succession.
>
>In every break, the private sector and the 
>internet community caucus and plan their 
>strategies for the next session.  Often the 
>civil society participants are more involved in 
>being upset at each other for one reason or 
>another.
>
>Or at least that is how it looked from my vantage point.
>
>My recommendation, coordinate and stick to your 
>positions.   Consider that is is better to have 
>you workshop kicked out and protest than it is 
>to have it turned in regurgitated pabulum.
>
>a.
>
>
>a.____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu May 12 09:46:56 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 10:46:56 -0300
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <p06240823c9f191eef102@192.168.1.160>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<A441065D-647A-437C-BC84-572D8C7AB43C@ella.com>
	<p06240823c9f191eef102@192.168.1.160>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikmrwW_QJPciZ5nkr_0v4OT8xSsfg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Perhaps our MAG members could do something?
>
> It would be great to have an update about discussions in the MAG. I have
heard from MAG members about a month ago that the Secretariat would like to
discuss proposals in MAG mailing list first, in order to arrive at the open
consultations with a draft list of selected proposals and suggestions to
merge.

Did this discussion take place? If so, were the proposals under "taking
stocks" debated?

Marília



> Adam
>
>
>
>
>  Hi,
>>
>> I think Louis  explained the motivation for the merger quite well.
>>
>>
>> On 12 May 2011, at 03:25, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>>
>>   ICC/BASIS and ISOC just want to snow the serious issues. A Sesame street
>>> kind of nice talk. Don't merge.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Re;  On 12 May 2011, at 08:59, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>
>>   In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other
>>> groups will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
>>> non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF
>>> workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can¹t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
>>> improvement?
>>>
>>
>>  From the vantage point of someone  who has watched the process for many
>>> years, I think this is an important caution.  The other protagonists, will
>>> be on chat together and will be working to reinforce each others comments,
>>> thus you will face a well spoken wall of opposition.  The civil society reps
>>> are often more individualistic and are not as well coordinated as supporting
>>> each others positions in rapid succession.
>>>
>>
>> In every break, the private sector and the internet community caucus and
>> plan their strategies for the next session.  Often the civil society
>> participants are more involved in being upset at each other for one reason
>> or another.
>>
>> Or at least that is how it looked from my vantage point.
>>
>> My recommendation, coordinate and stick to your positions.   Consider that
>> is is better to have you workshop kicked out and protest than it is to have
>> it turned in regurgitated pabulum.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>> a.____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/5d78da81/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu May 12 09:48:17 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:48:17 +0200
Subject: AW: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
 <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF92@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Lee:
In general, re G8 vs G20 vs UN; obviously UN is most inclusive. But G20 does include ~66% global population, so in general it is far better for IGC to focus some energy on than G8.

Wolfgang:
I am not so sure, Lee. The G 20 includes the three countries who are proposing a new intergovernmental platform for Internet Governance (to close a gap in the existing Internet Governance ecosystem, as they argue). This will be negotiated in the he 2nd Committee of the UN General Assembly in October 2011. With other words, there is an option that Brazil, India and South Africa bring their IBSA-idea also to the forhtcoming G 20 summit in November, not waiting, until the French president takes the Internet to his G 20 priority list. And there is China and Russia. With other words, the chances for civil society to get heard are probably better in the G 8 environmentr than in the G 20. 
 
Nevertheless in both G8 and G20 civil society has something unique to offer in substance to the "discussion platform" (or the forthcoming "negotiation table"). Just to call for a seat in the front row makes not so much sense. In WSIS, when CS was asked what the added value could be, CS brings to the table, we argued 
a. expertise and specific (technical) knowledge
b. linkage to the real problems of the real people on the ground
c. networks for capacity building at the grass root level
d. power to mobilize masses of Internet users   

The question we have to answer today is, inter alia:
a. What we can do to enhance cybersecurity for individual end users? 
b. How can we enhance the knowledge of people whi to use the Internet in the right way? 
c. How we can continue with efforts to bridge the digital divde on the ground?
e. How can we safe human rights like freedom of expression and privacy of individual users against undue political or commercial interests by governments and corporations.
 
BTW, when we had the ATLAS (ICANNs At-Large Summit) in Mexico, we called this as the "first" world summit of Internet users (a little bit overstretched, but not so wrong). This was in March 2009. More or less there was an agreement to have a 2nd Internet User Summit (ATLAS II) in the near future. If we think about 2012 or 2013 we have to start the preparations rather soon. 
 
Wolfgang   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu May 12 09:51:08 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:51:08 +0300
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <B14F66EA-B604-431C-A71A-7BEEE6BDA408@ella.com>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
 <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com> <B14F66EA-B604-431C-A71A-7BEEE6BDA408@ella.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinz+_156VYJbPRgEhL7zOOzUfxqMw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>
> On 12 May 2011, at 09:00, McTim wrote:
>
>>
>> whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE
>> activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for
>> potential IG bodies???
>
>
> The so called actual internet governance activities are also political affairs and also largely controlled by business interests.   And tell me, where is it written that these activities should have a monopoly, especially if that monopoly is rigged.

As Karl has so often pointed out, you can start your own root.

>
> Civil society needs to participate in any and all activities and needs to stand up to the business and government interests in all fora..  Are you suggesting that civil society leave certain venues only to business interests?

I am suggesting that this caucus spends all of its time and energy on
"stuff"  that makes zero (or near enough to zero) impact on the
Internet.

>
> I think civil society must participate in all of it and not limit itself to a few venues.

Agreed, but we focus on IGF (and now Gs 8 & 20) and not on processes
where actual policy is made.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu May 12 10:22:11 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:22:11 -0300
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF92@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
	<C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF92@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikiB-tfOtJQ30-5cex8Ee4m8yjpgA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Wolfgang, please see some comments below:

2011/5/12 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

>
>
> Wolfgang:
> I am not so sure, Lee. The G 20 includes the three countries who are
> proposing a new intergovernmental platform for Internet Governance (to close
> a gap in the existing Internet Governance ecosystem, as they argue). This
> will be negotiated in the he 2nd Committee of the UN General Assembly in
> October 2011. With other words, there is an option that Brazil, India and
> South Africa bring their IBSA-idea also to the forhtcoming G 20 summit in
> November, not waiting, until the French president takes the Internet to his
> G 20 priority list. And there is China and Russia. With other words, the
> chances for civil society to get heard are probably better in the G 8
> environmentr than in the G 20.
>

I disagree with your judgement, for some reasons:

- There is no clear proposal on enhanced cooperation yet and how it would
complement the IGF. IBSA statement manifests unhappiness with status quo:
Internet policies being decided between developed countries and exported to
the world. It is a call to multilateralism in opposition to plurilateralism.
It is not an opposition to multistekeholderism per se. Of course, we need to
act and make sure that EC proposal does not kill multistakeholderism as
horrible "collateral damage".

- Brazil and India will participate in a workshop in the IGF, organized by
civil society, to discuss IG institutional Gaps and to share their views on
EC and other stuff. Are G8 countries being as open to explain their
selective view of multistakeholderism?

- India and Brazil made concrete proposals in CSTD WG to improve the IGF,
the only platform for full multistakeholder involvement we have today, while
most developed countries did not want any significant changes. We know that
if the IGF is not improved, it will fade away eventually. What are these G8
countries doing to improve the IGF, despite paying lip service?

- Take a look at the line-up of sessions CS has proposed to discuss IG
regime improvement (in WSIS, in IGF, ICANN). How many G8 representatives you
find there?

- Since CSTD WG meeting in February, in Montreaux, India and Brazil defended
more civil society seats in the drafting group that was supposed to write
the CSTD WG report and defended more civil society seats in the MAG. G8
countries have taken the opposite direction, being tied-up and committed to
private interests and shutting down the participation of civil society.

- Certainly China and Russia have different interests. But the world is
diverse, we cannot keep discussing among friends, otherwise we will never
reach a truly global solution to problems. And honestly, with policies such
as Hadopi, I cannot say that France is a "friendly" country that respects
freedom of expression, can I?


>
> Nevertheless in both G8 and G20 civil society has something unique to offer
> in substance to the "discussion platform" (or the forthcoming "negotiation
> table"). Just to call for a seat in the front row makes not so much sense.
> In WSIS, when CS was asked what the added value could be, CS brings to the
> table, we argued
> a. expertise and specific (technical) knowledge
> b. linkage to the real problems of the real people on the ground
> c. networks for capacity building at the grass root level
> d. power to mobilize masses of Internet users
>
> Totally agree with you.


> The question we have to answer today is, inter alia:
> a. What we can do to enhance cybersecurity for individual end users?
> b. How can we enhance the knowledge of people whi to use the Internet in
> the right way?
> c. How we can continue with efforts to bridge the digital divde on the
> ground?
> e. How can we safe human rights like freedom of expression and privacy of
> individual users against undue political or commercial interests by
> governments and corporations.
>

I certainly would not list cybersecurity as a top priority (points a and b)
on this list, first because I believe we should be careful not to adhere to
a governmental and business agenda, secondly while so many people are still
excluded from the internet, the first concern of the world should be
access. And I would certainly add the problem of ensuring freedom of
expression (opposed to filtering and censorship and opposed to policies such
as COICA and Hadopi) and of ensuring access to information and knowledge.


>
> BTW, when we had the ATLAS (ICANNs At-Large Summit) in Mexico, we called
> this as the "first" world summit of Internet users (a little bit
> overstretched, but not so wrong). This was in March 2009. More or less there
> was an agreement to have a 2nd Internet User Summit (ATLAS II) in the near
> future. If we think about 2012 or 2013 we have to start the preparations
> rather soon.
>
> Wolfgang
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/e5fa9687/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 10:41:10 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (katitza at eff.org)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
 Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org><20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch><4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org><20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch><BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC support). I will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in the last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I should make sure to defend, please let me know. 

All the best, Katitza.  
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"

Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our
main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
proposal.



Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a
revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without
reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex:
CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential
shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business sector
and the technical community, in my view.



A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas,
reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet
for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.



The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
workshop, with half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview
of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the
proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be dedicated to
focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don’t know if that
would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this would be
in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by
political considerations.



In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups
will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF
workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
improvement?



Best,

Marília

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> > >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> > >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> > >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
> >
> > >> that the three be merged.
> > > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
> > >
> > > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
> > > desires of Marilia and yourself?
> >
> > A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
> > have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
> > teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
> > "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
> > the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
> > more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
> > difficult to speculate.
>
> Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
> debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
> support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
> you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
> the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
> approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
> at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
> other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
> non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
> with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
> debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/5d28f0d2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From avri at ella.com  Thu May 12 10:42:27 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 10:42:27 -0400
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinz+_156VYJbPRgEhL7zOOzUfxqMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com> <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com> <B14F66EA-B604-431C-A71A-7BEEE6BDA408@ella.com> <BANLkTinz+_156VYJbPRgEhL7zOOzUfxqMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8DA85CB4-21D3-4AA8-B720-6D6B681F0495@ella.com>


On 12 May 2011, at 09:51, McTim wrote:

> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 12 May 2011, at 09:00, McTim wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE
>>> activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for
>>> potential IG bodies???
>> 
>> 
>> The so called actual internet governance activities are also political affairs and also largely controlled by business interests.   And tell me, where is it written that these activities should have a monopoly, especially if that monopoly is rigged.
> 
> As Karl has so often pointed out, you can start your own root.

Sooner or later someone will succeed.

The root is after all, just a glorified "phone book", translating one kind of name into another kind of name (we pretend that IP addresses are numbers, but they really are just names constructed of digits).  

At this point ICANN's root has the trust and the mindshare, but that is a fragile thing and ICANN could easily lose the trust/mindshare.  Initiating support for another root just requires a bit of energy that  so far, no one has managed.  Sooner or later, one will emerge - someone just needs to put in the effort.  

Count on it.

> 
>> 
>> Civil society needs to participate in any and all activities and needs to stand up to the business and government interests in all fora..  Are you suggesting that civil society leave certain venues only to business interests?
> 
> I am suggesting that this caucus spends all of its time and energy on
> "stuff"  that makes zero (or near enough to zero) impact on the
> Internet.

I think you misjudge the vectors that might have an influence now or in the future.    I think civil society has to find a way to participate in all of it, and not just the ones who currently seem to be key.

> 
>> 
>> I think civil society must participate in all of it and not limit itself to a few venues.
> 
> Agreed, but we focus on IGF (and now Gs 8 & 20) and not on processes
> where actual policy is made.
> 

Many of us do focus in ICANN.  And though it sometimes seems like a losing proposition for civil society, lots of people keep banging their heads against that particular brick wall.

As for the RIRs, they have a self declared control on IP addresses.  One that is only partial over IPv4, but will be complete over IPv6 (could this be a reason for pushing it so hard?).  Replacing IP addressing is hard, a lot harder, than replacing DNS naming.  But also this control is more prone to national attack and thus requires more energy to defend.  The policy making of these organizations is open, but it is particularistic and takes a high degree of energy and expense for people to have an effect on.  So yes, it is good that people get involved in RIPE and ARIN etc...  and civil society is involved Milton has led the way and as you intimated once, we need more Miltons to take on the RIRs.

But even among the RIRs coordination is an iffy thing, and one that certainly does not seem to be open to the rest of us.   If we want to have any sort of voice at the NRO level, or on its shadow puppet the ASO,  we need to apply multistakeholder pressure from outside. Multistakeholder pressure requires governement particpation at this point in history and thus yes, we need to work with individual governments, G8, G20, ..., the OECD, the UN etc.  And we even need to work with business and the internet community, we just should not be overtaken by any them, and should not assume their good will toward civil society.

a.

ps: if it seems that i have become more outspoken all of a sudden it is because i no longer have any role that requires me to be neutral.  as someone said, i am free now.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 10:57:15 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (katitza at eff.org)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:57:15 +0000
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org><20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch><4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org><20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch><BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com><1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for the MAG. However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I will be working in the SOP workshops. 

If there are other workshops that are well done (ie touching the key and hot policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do not miss it! Katitza. 
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: katitza at eff.org
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
 Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"

Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC support). I will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in the last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I should make sure to defend, please let me know. 

All the best, Katitza.  
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"

Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our
main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
proposal.



Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a
revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without
reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex:
CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential
shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business sector
and the technical community, in my view.



A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas,
reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet
for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.



The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
workshop, with half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview
of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the
proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be dedicated to
focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don’t know if that
would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this would be
in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by
political considerations.



In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups
will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF
workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
improvement?



Best,

Marília

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> > >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
> > >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead, they
> > >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting
> >
> > >> that the three be merged.
> > > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
> > >
> > > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
> > > desires of Marilia and yourself?
> >
> > A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
> > have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
> > teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
> > "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
> > the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
> > more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
> > difficult to speculate.
>
> Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
> debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
> support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
> you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
> the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
> approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
> at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
> other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
> non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
> with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
> debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/fa7a4157/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu May 12 11:21:25 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 17:21:25 +0200
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
	<466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com>

I will be going to the meetings.

We have the workshop scoring activity underway already and it ends at
the end of this week.

I am focusing on IG4D Workshops.

IGC really needs to work with its MAG representatives on issues of interest.

Sorry for the short reply...travelling.....!

Fouad



On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM,  <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
> I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for the MAG.
> However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I will be
> working in the SOP workshops.
>
> If there are other workshops that are well done (ie touching the key and hot
> policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do not miss
> it! Katitza.
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> ________________________________
> From: katitza at eff.org
> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>;
> Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
> Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
> Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC support). I
> will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in the
> last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I should
> make sure to defend, please let me know.
>
> All the best, Katitza.
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> ________________________________
> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
> proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>
> Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our
> main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
> proposal.
>
>
>
> Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a
> revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without
> reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex:
> CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential
> shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business sector
> and the technical community, in my view.
>
>
>
> A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
> starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas,
> reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet
> for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.
>
>
>
> The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
> workshop, with half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview
> of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the
> proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be dedicated to
> focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don’t know if that
> would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this would be
> in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by
> political considerations.
>
>
>
> In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups
> will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
> non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF
> workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
> improvement?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Marília
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>> > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> > > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>> > >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
>> > >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead,
>> > >> they
>> > >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and
>> > >> suggesting
>> >
>> > >> that the three be merged.
>> > > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>> > >
>> > > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
>> > > desires of Marilia and yourself?
>> >
>> > A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
>> > have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
>> > teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
>> > "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
>> > the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
>> > more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
>> > difficult to speculate.
>>
>> Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
>> debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
>> support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
>> you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
>> the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
>> approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
>> at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
>> other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
>> non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
>> with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
>> debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu May 12 11:58:39 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 00:58:39 +0900
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>
	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>
	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
	<466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
	<BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
> I will be going to the meetings.
>
> We have the workshop scoring activity underway already and it ends at
> the end of this week.
>
> I am focusing on IG4D Workshops.
>
> IGC really needs to work with its MAG representatives on issues of interest.
>

You have that the wrong way round.

MAG representatives really need to work with the IGC.

When nominated everyone made promises to consult, inform, etc.  It's
not been happening.

Adam
'

> Sorry for the short reply...travelling.....!
>
> Fouad
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM,  <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>> I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for the MAG.
>> However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I will be
>> working in the SOP workshops.
>>
>> If there are other workshops that are well done (ie touching the key and hot
>> policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do not miss
>> it! Katitza.
>>
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: katitza at eff.org
>> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>;
>> Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
>> Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>> Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC support). I
>> will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in the
>> last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I should
>> make sure to defend, please let me know.
>>
>> All the best, Katitza.
>>
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
>> proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>
>> Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our
>> main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
>> proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a
>> revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without
>> reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex:
>> CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential
>> shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business sector
>> and the technical community, in my view.
>>
>>
>>
>> A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
>> starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas,
>> reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet
>> for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.
>>
>>
>>
>> The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
>> workshop, with half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview
>> of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the
>> proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be dedicated to
>> focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don’t know if that
>> would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this would be
>> in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by
>> political considerations.
>>
>>
>>
>> In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups
>> will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
>> non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF
>> workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
>> improvement?
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Marília
>>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>> > On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>> > > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>> > >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
>>> > >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead,
>>> > >> they
>>> > >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and
>>> > >> suggesting
>>> >
>>> > >> that the three be merged.
>>> > > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>>> > >
>>> > > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
>>> > > desires of Marilia and yourself?
>>> >
>>> > A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
>>> > have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
>>> > teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
>>> > "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
>>> > the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
>>> > more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
>>> > difficult to speculate.
>>>
>>> Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
>>> debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
>>> support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
>>> you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
>>> the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
>>> approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
>>> at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
>>> other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
>>> non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
>>> with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
>>> debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu May 12 12:02:14 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:02:14 -0400
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikiB-tfOtJQ30-5cex8Ee4m8yjpgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
	<C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BF92@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,<BANLkTikiB-tfOtJQ30-5cex8Ee4m8yjpgA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BE6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Agreed with Marila.

With caveat that access, freedom of expression and cybersecurity are all important and  it is appropriate for all 3 issues and other Internet Governance issues to be discussed at G20 meetings, just as they have been at G8 meetings for years already; as well as IGF.

Lee




________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 10:22 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
Subject: Re: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

Hi Wolfgang, please see some comments below:

2011/5/12 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>


Wolfgang:
I am not so sure, Lee. The G 20 includes the three countries who are proposing a new intergovernmental platform for Internet Governance (to close a gap in the existing Internet Governance ecosystem, as they argue). This will be negotiated in the he 2nd Committee of the UN General Assembly in October 2011. With other words, there is an option that Brazil, India and South Africa bring their IBSA-idea also to the forhtcoming G 20 summit in November, not waiting, until the French president takes the Internet to his G 20 priority list. And there is China and Russia. With other words, the chances for civil society to get heard are probably better in the G 8 environmentr than in the G 20.

I disagree with your judgement, for some reasons:

- There is no clear proposal on enhanced cooperation yet and how it would complement the IGF. IBSA statement manifests unhappiness with status quo: Internet policies being decided between developed countries and exported to the world. It is a call to multilateralism in opposition to plurilateralism. It is not an opposition to multistekeholderism per se. Of course, we need to act and make sure that EC proposal does not kill multistakeholderism as horrible "collateral damage".

- Brazil and India will participate in a workshop in the IGF, organized by civil society, to discuss IG institutional Gaps and to share their views on EC and other stuff. Are G8 countries being as open to explain their selective view of multistakeholderism?

- India and Brazil made concrete proposals in CSTD WG to improve the IGF, the only platform for full multistakeholder involvement we have today, while most developed countries did not want any significant changes. We know that if the IGF is not improved, it will fade away eventually. What are these G8 countries doing to improve the IGF, despite paying lip service?

- Take a look at the line-up of sessions CS has proposed to discuss IG regime improvement (in WSIS, in IGF, ICANN). How many G8 representatives you find there?

- Since CSTD WG meeting in February, in Montreaux, India and Brazil defended more civil society seats in the drafting group that was supposed to write the CSTD WG report and defended more civil society seats in the MAG. G8 countries have taken the opposite direction, being tied-up and committed to private interests and shutting down the participation of civil society.

- Certainly China and Russia have different interests. But the world is diverse, we cannot keep discussing among friends, otherwise we will never reach a truly global solution to problems. And honestly, with policies such as Hadopi, I cannot say that France is a "friendly" country that respects freedom of expression, can I?


Nevertheless in both G8 and G20 civil society has something unique to offer in substance to the "discussion platform" (or the forthcoming "negotiation table"). Just to call for a seat in the front row makes not so much sense. In WSIS, when CS was asked what the added value could be, CS brings to the table, we argued
a. expertise and specific (technical) knowledge
b. linkage to the real problems of the real people on the ground
c. networks for capacity building at the grass root level
d. power to mobilize masses of Internet users

Totally agree with you.

The question we have to answer today is, inter alia:
a. What we can do to enhance cybersecurity for individual end users?
b. How can we enhance the knowledge of people whi to use the Internet in the right way?
c. How we can continue with efforts to bridge the digital divde on the ground?
e. How can we safe human rights like freedom of expression and privacy of individual users against undue political or commercial interests by governments and corporations.

I certainly would not list cybersecurity as a top priority (points a and b) on this list, first because I believe we should be careful not to adhere to a governmental and business agenda, secondly while so many people are still excluded from the internet, the first concern of the world should be access. And I would certainly add the problem of ensuring freedom of expression (opposed to filtering and censorship and opposed to policies such as COICA and Hadopi) and of ensuring access to information and knowledge.


BTW, when we had the ATLAS (ICANNs At-Large Summit) in Mexico, we called this as the "first" world summit of Internet users (a little bit overstretched, but not so wrong). This was in March 2009. More or less there was an agreement to have a 2nd Internet User Summit (ATLAS II) in the near future. If we think about 2012 or 2013 we have to start the preparations rather soon.

Wolfgang
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




--
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From vanda at uol.com.br  Thu May 12 12:03:30 2011
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:03:30 -0300
Subject: RES: [governance] Nominations open 2011 Communication for Social
 Change Awards / UQ CCSC
In-Reply-To: <p0620073ec9e476f5a779@[10.0.1.6]>
References: <p0620073ec9e476f5a779@[10.0.1.6]>
Message-ID: <00cc01cc10be$24498390$6cdc8ab0$@uol.com.br>

Hi George
 Thanks for that. I will send to the Foundation I am chair of the board, to
present the case of deploying PLC (power line communication) we allowed the
poor community to organize themselves with a page on the web and since they
are in the way to the site where satellites are launching  here, they
started to offer some facilities as place to stop, to taste the local food
etc. to tourists.
 Looks that is the spirit! 

Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados 
IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8
01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil
Tel + 5511 3266.6253
Mob + 55118181.1464


-----Mensagem original-----
De: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de
George Sadowsky
Enviada em: terça-feira, 3 de maio de 2011 12:17
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Assunto: [governance] Nominations open 2011 Communication for Social Change
Awards / UQ CCSC

>X-Originating-IP: [202.12.29.199]
>Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:59:20 +1000
>From: Sylvia Cadena <sylvia at apnic.net>
>Reply-To: sylvia at apnic.net
>Organization: APNIC
>User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: grantees-2010 at isif.asia, grantees-2009 at isif.asia
>Subject: Your help to spread the word: Nominations open 2011 
>Communication
>  for Social Change Awards / UQ CCSC
>
>Hi everybody,
>
>The Centre for Communication and Social Change, at the University of 
>Queensland, has opened this year's applications for the Communication 
>for Social Change Awards. This is the global award, and I believe that 
>you and your organizations are perfect candidates, as the award was 
>established to recognise those that have demonstrated extraordinary 
>commitment to using communication to transform and empower marginalised 
>communities. If you are not interested to nominate your self or your 
>organization for the award, please help us to spread the word about it 
>among your colleagues and networks.
>
>The award consists of a $AUD 2500 prize and a travel package to 
>participate in the Award Ceremony in Australia. The visit will also be 
>used to promote the impact that communication projects can have in 
>development efforts. Each year two awards will be presented: one to an 
>individual and one to an organisation/institution. Those awarded can be 
>either practitioners/activists working the field, or theorists.
>
>Please see the information sheet attached or visit for more information:
>http://www.uq.edu.au/ccsc/how-to-apply. For further information please 
>contact Jessica London at j.london at uq.edu.au or call on (+61
>7) 3346 3092.
>
>Applications close *Friday the 24th of June 2011*
>
>All the best,
>
>Sylvia
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>Sylvia Cadena                                   |  Project Officer
>ISIF Information Society Innovation Fund        |  sylvia at isif.asia
>APNIC Resource Quality Assurance                |  sylvia at apnic.net
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>sip: sylvia at voip.apnic.net                      |  skype: sylviacadena
>Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) |  Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 
>PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia  |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199
>6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD          |  http://www.apnic.net
>_______________________________________________________________________
>_____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From nb at bollow.ch  Thu May 12 12:45:15 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 18:45:15 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] open standard for "facebook crowd" interactions
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com> (message
	from McTim on Thu, 12 May 2011 16:00:22 +0300)
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
 <C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110512164515.2C1AB15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE
> activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for
> potential IG bodies???

Cool idea.

How's the following for a topic?

I think that it should be possible for me to interact with anyone who
is "on facebook" and who wants to interact with me, without having to
put my personal data onto the servers of a company that I don't trust
at all, and which in addition is under the jurisdiction of a country
whose legal system I trust much less than I trust the Swiss one.

Now I'm not demanding that Facebook Inc. should go out business or
that they'd have to "give away" copies of their software, just that
there should be open interfaces allowing others to implement their own
software to communicate with the "facebook crowd" while keeping their
personal data on servers of their own choosing. (And analogously for
other "social network" server based services.)

I have no idea what would be a suitable forum for effectively
addressing this topic.

Thoughts?

Greetings,
Norbert
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu May 12 13:41:04 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 05:41:04 +1200
Subject: [governance] Invitation: WSIS Form workshop on governance
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim0bzLPyPeaR2G0S-q6J51DArXdVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EEDF4713-9C55-4635-866B-22C6E83BB691@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTim7Tco-ngYBvStr1geVCmQ_QO2d8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinow=aLHzxciRvm3vU_D_w_a8zVEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8F3E4618-B094-4771-B7E2-E7CDF5F06380@ella.com>
	<B76CFDE4-1947-4439-BEA5-0007CE8668BA@uzh.ch>
	<BANLkTi=ELtAWFGd-00Z0M4LhJYHyBFNAqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikG-3JRVXa+7ty1BTPRoPRmCC=WJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim0bzLPyPeaR2G0S-q6J51DArXdVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinsF_RRmp-V4NsgKv+pWwFSmNTmmw@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, Deidre :)

I have also informed other Pacific Island countries of the WSIS and
sent them the links and advised them that it would be good to get
together in their countries and log in and raise their issues and
views.  Hopefully, some will register.

Warm Regards,

Sala

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Deirdre Williams
<williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> In case you are counting I have registered for remote participation too.
> Deirdre
> PS That's at least 2 remote small islands on opposite sides of the world :-)
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>



-- 
Sala

"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 14:02:58 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:02:58 -0700
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DCC20D2.7090803@eff.org>

Hi Marilia,
>
> In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other 
> groups will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of 
> non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several 
> IGF workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 
> workshops on IGF improvement?
>

You do not need to merge. You are encourage to merge. MAG members are 
encourage to "grade" the workshops to see if they comply with the 
multi-stakeholder requirements.

Happy to back up Marilian on this.

Katitza
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu May 12 14:04:40 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 06:04:40 +1200
Subject: [governance] open standard for "facebook crowd" interactions
In-Reply-To: <20110512164515.2C1AB15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
	<C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110512164515.2C1AB15C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=kgN=UAaCOY4AuxbKg4JAV6_CBGQ@mail.gmail.com>

:) I think that both are important, the vehicles in which IG issues
will be raised as well as the substantive IG issues. There is no point
in developing an excellent discussion on substantive IG issues that
are holistic if it cannot be strategically implemented.

The discussion on vehicles and methodology is also critical. In
courtrooms, even if advocates have clear substantive arguments the
Judge or Judges can refuse to hear them if they do not have locus
standii or if they come in the wrong vehicle.

It follows that in a complex world which is riddled with politics,
agendas, the wisdom to navigate through the maze and to find the
portal in which issues can be raised is key.

If Facebook is registered in the US, it follows that it is subject to
the laws of the US or specifically California, correct me if I am
wrong. As such, one can make submissions to the regulators within the
US on the issue and argue from a "discrimination" standpoint. Without
a doubt it would be challenged in courts as Facebook is a million if
not billion dollar revenue. If the US has ratified the ICCPR and has
enshrined within its constitution anti discrimination framework, locus
can clearly be built and submissions made to either the regulators to
make a ruling on opening the door for other sub-applications to rest
in facebook, an unbundling concept.

Having said that, the converse argument is that the internet should
not be regulated period.

I think that as discussions emerge on which layers to regulate as it
did with the telecommunications industry in the past, it is critical
that jurists start thinking about the philosophies that create the
foundation on which regulations will emerge. Questions such as do we
have a heavy handed regulatory approach or light handed emerges. The
impact of alot of these decisions, even if made on US soil clearly has
a spillover effect on the rest of the world as was the example Ncube
Benson, a Diplo Fellow in Vilnius has alluded to during the Net
Neutrality Workshop as he was commenting.

This is for discussion only and does not constitute legal advice and
should not be relied on. This is merely an opinion.


On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:45 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE
>> activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for
>> potential IG bodies???
>
> Cool idea.
>
> How's the following for a topic?
>
> I think that it should be possible for me to interact with anyone who
> is "on facebook" and who wants to interact with me, without having to
> put my personal data onto the servers of a company that I don't trust
> at all, and which in addition is under the jurisdiction of a country
> whose legal system I trust much less than I trust the Swiss one.
>
> Now I'm not demanding that Facebook Inc. should go out business or
> that they'd have to "give away" copies of their software, just that
> there should be open interfaces allowing others to implement their own
> software to communicate with the "facebook crowd" while keeping their
> personal data on servers of their own choosing. (And analogously for
> other "social network" server based services.)
>
> I have no idea what would be a suitable forum for effectively
> addressing this topic.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
Sala

"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu May 12 14:04:36 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 02:04:36 +0800
Subject: [governance] Privacy Flare-Up Prompts Facebook Meetings with
 Congress, Employees
Message-ID: <BDD333E26E8B4A17AA3EEAE23F85C36C@userPC>

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/facebook-privacy-meeting/

Roughly 20% of Facebook users are from the US (based on 500,000,000 users)
and as a proportion Canadians are I believe, the largest users of Facebook
by overall national population.

If, as these folks in the US congress seem to think, there are issues of
privacy in the use of Facebook that might at some point warrant
legislative/regulatory intervention--what is the proper jurisdiction in
which that legislation/regulation should occur?  

Where it has its legal registration, where the majority of its shareholders
reside, where it's the impacts of its behaviours are most widely experienced
and so on and so on? 

Why should (can I expect) US Congressmen to act on my behalf to protect my
privacy as a Canadian using Facebook and what about all of the other
400,000,000 non-US users?

These, I think, are among the issues of Internet Governance for CS to be
addressing and not simply the issues, but more importantly what modalities
could/should be established to respond to these issues on behalf of all of
those impacted.

Mike


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu May 12 14:20:04 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 06:20:04 +1200
Subject: [governance] Privacy Flare-Up Prompts Facebook Meetings with
 Congress, Employees
In-Reply-To: <BDD333E26E8B4A17AA3EEAE23F85C36C@userPC>
References: <BDD333E26E8B4A17AA3EEAE23F85C36C@userPC>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikwHQ_ffaikg0LW52nZDOy0RfhN6g@mail.gmail.com>

There should be a distinction between shareholders and customers. The
actual shareholders, Zuckerberg and others are the ones who receive
dividends from the company.

Because the consumers drive the company in terms of the creation of a
demand through exploiting people's need and basic desire to
communicate and keep in touch with their friends and relatives - to
persuade them to boycott Facebook is going to have to have a strategic
approach that is psychological and persuasive enough to cause them to
forego facebook, at least for a week or two. If facebook users all
over the world collectively shut down for a day, a week, a month, two
months, it would literally cripple facebook. Advertising companies who
share revenue sharing agreements with Facebook would pull back,
investors may have second thoughts, the directors would sit up and
take notice.

Facebook probably thinks that it is untouchable and is a virtual world
on its own. Until someone regulates it. For someone from outside the
US, it could be through the Alien Tort Act if it still exists.

The other way is through the GATS but it will meet some seriously
heavy resistance from lobying by multinationals.

The real question though is whose interests are being served?



On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/facebook-privacy-meeting/
>
> Roughly 20% of Facebook users are from the US (based on 500,000,000 users)
> and as a proportion Canadians are I believe, the largest users of Facebook
> by overall national population.
>
> If, as these folks in the US congress seem to think, there are issues of
> privacy in the use of Facebook that might at some point warrant
> legislative/regulatory intervention--what is the proper jurisdiction in
> which that legislation/regulation should occur?
>
> Where it has its legal registration, where the majority of its shareholders
> reside, where it's the impacts of its behaviours are most widely experienced
> and so on and so on?
>
> Why should (can I expect) US Congressmen to act on my behalf to protect my
> privacy as a Canadian using Facebook and what about all of the other
> 400,000,000 non-US users?
>
> These, I think, are among the issues of Internet Governance for CS to be
> addressing and not simply the issues, but more importantly what modalities
> could/should be established to respond to these issues on behalf of all of
> those impacted.
>
> Mike
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
Sala

"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu May 12 14:26:51 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 20:26:51 +0200
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com>

Kindly accept my apologies in advance for being direct as this is upsetting.

Adam that would be arguable. I appreciate your coming back at me as if I or our MAG members may be faulty. I have never received a single response to my requests to the list when I requested for input. this happened in 2009, 2010 and now fingers being pointed in 2011 which is upsetting.

At my end, i have taken IGC statements to the MAG meetings and attempted to the best of my knowledge. I have run after IGC members present taking ongoing advice on issues. Ginger, Parminder, Anriyette, Jovan, Ian, Bertrand, Miguel, George, Qusai, Marillia, Bill and the list goes on have all been very kind and helping. 

For the first time in 3 years you interacted with me in the last mag meeting on issues of participation. Sorry to say Avri has been right in many circumstances and so has Parminder that IGC does lack coordination. It is not time to point fingers but to help work out and strategize for the upcoming meeting.

People here come from various organizations and backgrounds. In my case the developing state is my major concern and the continuous death and human right violation issues associated with Internet policy are the biggest to threat to me, my citizenry and many others in the developing world.

I have witnessed that there is more interest in being part of mag by many then to actually tackle the issues relevant to IG. We have to get our act straight otherwise this is not belong us.

Where is IGC's MAG working group thread or discussions, why haven't the coordinators ever initiated such a thing? Why isn't there a skype discussion group for Igc in open consultations and mag? Why aren't we coordinated whereas we take so much time to relate and repeat histories of policy institutions and arrangements.

I hear you Adam but you do have the senior experience and exposure to help us from developing countries, work with us and support advice sharing for open consultations and mag meetings. Being cynical is fine but really I get upset with all my developed country CS peers to be arguing on issues of least relevance to the developing world and more on history and 
Process theory. 

If we can't be helped by you then don't ridicule us especially when we are a victim of our own severe life threatening situations and still struggling. I have already been threatened three times during MAG meetings etc and it does hold value.

I wish you and many others would be more understanding.


Fouad Bajwa
sent using my iPad

On 12 May 2011, at 05:58 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I will be going to the meetings.
>> 
>> We have the workshop scoring activity underway already and it ends at
>> the end of this week.
>> 
>> I am focusing on IG4D Workshops.
>> 
>> IGC really needs to work with its MAG representatives on issues of interest.
>> 
> 
> You have that the wrong way round.
> 
> MAG representatives really need to work with the IGC.
> 
> When nominated everyone made promises to consult, inform, etc.  It's
> not been happening.
> 
> Adam
> '
> 
>> Sorry for the short reply...travelling.....!
>> 
>> Fouad
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM,  <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>>> I'm going through all the workshops, one by one to be ready for the MAG.
>>> However during the meeting, we might divided the work by themes. I will be
>>> working in the SOP workshops.
>>> 
>>> If there are other workshops that are well done (ie touching the key and hot
>>> policy issues) that require highly attention, let me know so I do not miss
>>> it! Katitza.
>>> 
>>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: katitza at eff.org
>>> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:41:10 +0000
>>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Marilia Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>;
>>> Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the
>>> Indianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>> Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC support). I
>>> will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in the
>>> last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I should
>>> make sure to defend, please let me know.
>>> 
>>> All the best, Katitza.
>>> 
>>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>> Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300
>>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>
>>> ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
>>> proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
>>> 
>>> Like Jeremy said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our
>>> main concern should be if the merger is in the best interest of our
>>> proposal.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Two points I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a
>>> revival of CSTD WG (go through all topics in a superficial manner without
>>> reaching any conclusions) and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex:
>>> CSTD WG x MAG as a way of improving the IGF). These are the two potential
>>> shortcomings of the proposals advanced, respectively, by the business sector
>>> and the technical community, in my view.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A merger should not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a
>>> starting point to discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas,
>>> reach a clear understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet
>>> for a while, such as the fear of more concrete outcomes.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The only possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer
>>> workshop, with half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview
>>> of the main issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the
>>> proposal from the business sector) and the other half would be dedicated to
>>> focus on the topics covered by Indian proposal. But I don’t know if that
>>> would be acceptable to the other groups and I am not convinced this would be
>>> in the best interest of our proposal in the end, but only a move driven by
>>> political considerations.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups
>>> will probably try to impinge us with the political burden of
>>> non-cooperation. We cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF
>>> workshops on NN, youth, etc. So why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
>>> improvement?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Marília
>>> 
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,
>>>>>>> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0".  Instead,
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and
>>>>>>> suggesting
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> that the three be merged.
>>>>>> Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the
>>>>>> desires of Marilia and yourself?
>>>>> 
>>>>> A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we
>>>>> have been requested not to repost it.  Anyway, my notes of the
>>>>> teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",
>>>>> "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to
>>>>> the much more focused agenda for our workshop.  I'm not sure how much
>>>>> more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not
>>>>> difficult to speculate.
>>>> 
>>>> Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general
>>>> debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly
>>>> support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and
>>>> you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on
>>>> the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they
>>>> approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place
>>>> at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the
>>>> other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the
>>>> non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong
>>>> with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad
>>>> debate for those who wish to participate in that.)
>>>> 
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Norbert
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>>> FGV Direito Rio
>>> 
>>> Center for Technology and Society
>>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 14:35:55 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:35:55 -0700
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org>

Hi there,

The MAG work is quite "intensive" you can't consult each decision. All 
depend of what others will say
or do as you know Adam.

I am only encouraging people to raise their voice if there are other 
workshops (beside the ones that IGC presented) that we should give high 
priority. There is still time to speak out. So please do so.

You should also give us trust to do our job since there is no logic to 
consult each step we made.

Katitza


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Thu May 12 14:37:44 2011
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:37:44 -0600
Subject: And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting
In-Reply-To: <8DA85CB4-21D3-4AA8-B720-6D6B681F0495@ella.com>
References: <C3CA54F5-055E-4C1C-900E-C02F5414B77B@ella.com>
	<C9F15140.209E2%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79BDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<BANLkTi=0QhXkq_YiJa4Tyb4_bOy1Kz3trw@mail.gmail.com>
	<B14F66EA-B604-431C-A71A-7BEEE6BDA408@ella.com>
	<BANLkTinz+_156VYJbPRgEhL7zOOzUfxqMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<8DA85CB4-21D3-4AA8-B720-6D6B681F0495@ella.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinzgy9rFZxH32w8-rAkJLDaQuL4-Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

I really liked this part of your answer:
*
The root is after all, just a glorified "phone book", translating one kind
of name into another kind of name (we pretend that IP addresses are numbers,
but they really are just names constructed of digits).*

Both ideas.

I also can read and feel you are a free person!

I agree with you on your evaluation of the political settings and the
importance of participation for netizens in all fora. One thing I find
paradoxical is that Governments and Societies in general are not dedicating
more resources to IG when the Internet and ICTs in general have become even
an always permanent (and then invisible) part of our daily lives.

Keep the good work,

Miguel

Disclaimer
My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my
employer or any other institution

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

>
> On 12 May 2011, at 09:51, McTim wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12 May 2011, at 09:00, McTim wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> whatever happened to focusing on ACTUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE
> >>> activities, instead of talking endlessly about shapes of tables for
> >>> potential IG bodies???
> >>
> >>
> >> The so called actual internet governance activities are also political
> affairs and also largely controlled by business interests.   And tell me,
> where is it written that these activities should have a monopoly, especially
> if that monopoly is rigged.
> >
> > As Karl has so often pointed out, you can start your own root.
>
> Sooner or later someone will succeed.
>
> The root is after all, just a glorified "phone book", translating one kind
> of name into another kind of name (we pretend that IP addresses are numbers,
> but they really are just names constructed of digits).
>
> At this point ICANN's root has the trust and the mindshare, but that is a
> fragile thing and ICANN could easily lose the trust/mindshare.  Initiating
> support for another root just requires a bit of energy that  so far, no one
> has managed.  Sooner or later, one will emerge - someone just needs to put
> in the effort.
>
> Count on it.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Civil society needs to participate in any and all activities and needs
> to stand up to the business and government interests in all fora..  Are you
> suggesting that civil society leave certain venues only to business
> interests?
> >
> > I am suggesting that this caucus spends all of its time and energy on
> > "stuff"  that makes zero (or near enough to zero) impact on the
> > Internet.
>
> I think you misjudge the vectors that might have an influence now or in the
> future.    I think civil society has to find a way to participate in all of
> it, and not just the ones who currently seem to be key.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I think civil society must participate in all of it and not limit itself
> to a few venues.
> >
> > Agreed, but we focus on IGF (and now Gs 8 & 20) and not on processes
> > where actual policy is made.
> >
>
> Many of us do focus in ICANN.  And though it sometimes seems like a losing
> proposition for civil society, lots of people keep banging their heads
> against that particular brick wall.
>
> As for the RIRs, they have a self declared control on IP addresses.  One
> that is only partial over IPv4, but will be complete over IPv6 (could this
> be a reason for pushing it so hard?).  Replacing IP addressing is hard, a
> lot harder, than replacing DNS naming.  But also this control is more prone
> to national attack and thus requires more energy to defend.  The policy
> making of these organizations is open, but it is particularistic and takes a
> high degree of energy and expense for people to have an effect on.  So yes,
> it is good that people get involved in RIPE and ARIN etc...  and civil
> society is involved Milton has led the way and as you intimated once, we
> need more Miltons to take on the RIRs.
>
> But even among the RIRs coordination is an iffy thing, and one that
> certainly does not seem to be open to the rest of us.   If we want to have
> any sort of voice at the NRO level, or on its shadow puppet the ASO,  we
> need to apply multistakeholder pressure from outside. Multistakeholder
> pressure requires governement particpation at this point in history and thus
> yes, we need to work with individual governments, G8, G20, ..., the OECD,
> the UN etc.  And we even need to work with business and the internet
> community, we just should not be overtaken by any them, and should not
> assume their good will toward civil society.
>
> a.
>
> ps: if it seems that i have become more outspoken all of a sudden it is
> because i no longer have any role that requires me to be neutral.  as
> someone said, i am free now.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/35706cbc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 14:43:41 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:43:41 -0700
Subject: [governance] Grading Workshops
Message-ID: <4DCC2A5D.6020400@eff.org>

Greetings:

I will start reading one by one the over 100 workshops that has been presented to see weather or not the workshops comply with "basic" requirements published in the IGF website (gender balance, region, etc):

0 = not at all
1 =  has made a little effort to satisfy the criteria
2 = somewhat meets the criteria
3= fully meets the criteria


We have only a week to do this and happy and happy to work with someone if someone is wiling to do so.! I will be available online and we can spend the whole day reading the workshops proposals.

The workshop proposals can be found at :http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2011/proposals

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu May 12 14:53:07 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 20:53:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org>
Message-ID: <AA4EF2E2-3AFB-4EA7-A579-59FC3D00CFD5@gmail.com>

Katitza you Are very right.

when I see the coordination of other stakeholder groups it does hurt because the IGC can really coordinate to deal with these live things before during and after these meetings. It is a role that everyone in IGC should contribute to.

Secondly since when has IGC started treating it's mag reps indifferently? Despite being mag members we are IGC members and we were nominated by IGC and IGC interests are our interests and we remain equal IGC members.

I see this finger pointing and the reply is that mag members can be changed but lacking the drive and co-ordination will never be replaced. First the co-ordination has to be improved.

Fouad Bajwa
sent using my iPad

On 12 May 2011, at 08:35 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

> Hi there,
> 
> The MAG work is quite "intensive" you can't consult each decision. All depend of what others will say
> or do as you know Adam.
> 
> I am only encouraging people to raise their voice if there are other workshops (beside the ones that IGC presented) that we should give high priority. There is still time to speak out. So please do so.
> 
> You should also give us trust to do our job since there is no logic to consult each step we made.
> 
> Katitza
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 14:55:03 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:55:03 -0700
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <AA4EF2E2-3AFB-4EA7-A579-59FC3D00CFD5@gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org> <AA4EF2E2-3AFB-4EA7-A579-59FC3D00CFD5@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DCC2D07.7020102@eff.org>

Fouad:

I disagree. The MAG is semi-dead so most of the important work if focus 
on CSTD. I can understand that. The MAG has not done anything until now 
that we have to grade the workshop. All the work comes in once.

So now: I need to work on this!

Big Hug

On 5/12/11 11:53 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> Katitza you Are very right.
>
> when I see the coordination of other stakeholder groups it does hurt because the IGC can really coordinate to deal with these live things before during and after these meetings. It is a role that everyone in IGC should contribute to.
>
> Secondly since when has IGC started treating it's mag reps indifferently? Despite being mag members we are IGC members and we were nominated by IGC and IGC interests are our interests and we remain equal IGC members.
>
> I see this finger pointing and the reply is that mag members can be changed but lacking the drive and co-ordination will never be replaced. First the co-ordination has to be improved.
>
> Fouad Bajwa
> sent using my iPad
>
> On 12 May 2011, at 08:35 PM, Katitza Rodriguez<katitza at eff.org>  wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> The MAG work is quite "intensive" you can't consult each decision. All depend of what others will say
>> or do as you know Adam.
>>
>> I am only encouraging people to raise their voice if there are other workshops (beside the ones that IGC presented) that we should give high priority. There is still time to speak out. So please do so.
>>
>> You should also give us trust to do our job since there is no logic to consult each step we made.
>>
>> Katitza
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 14:59:26 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:59:26 -0700
Subject: [governance] Grading Workshops
In-Reply-To: <4DCC2A5D.6020400@eff.org>
References: <4DCC2A5D.6020400@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DCC2E0E.9000803@eff.org>

Greetings:

One more thing: I will opposed to any intent to block a workshops based 
in the content of the workshop. And I will challenge any rule that 
attempts to do so, if any.


On 5/12/11 11:43 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> I will start reading one by one the over 100 workshops that has been 
> presented to see weather or not the workshops comply with "basic" 
> requirements published in the IGF website (gender balance, region, etc):
>
> 0 = not at all
> 1 =  has made a little effort to satisfy the criteria
> 2 = somewhat meets the criteria
> 3= fully meets the criteria
>
>
> We have only a week to do this and happy and happy to work with 
> someone if someone is wiling to do so.! I will be available online and 
> we can spend the whole day reading the workshops proposals.
>
> The workshop proposals can be found at 
> :http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2011/proposals
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 15:17:20 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:17:20 -0700
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
 proposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikmrwW_QJPciZ5nkr_0v4OT8xSsfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org>	<20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>	<4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org>	<20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch>	<BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com>	<A441065D-647A-437C-BC84-572D8C7AB43C@ella.com>	<p06240823c9f191eef102@192.168.1.160> <BANLkTikmrwW_QJPciZ5nkr_0v4OT8xSsfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DCC3240.5070706@eff.org>

Hi there,

There have been NO discussion as of now. The discussion will be held in 
Geneva during the MAG meeting. MAGs members needs to prepare for that 
meeting and DO their job. AKA: Read the 111 workshops approx. 
descriptions and grade them as I explained in an email. Then, we will be 
ready to combat any attempt to block any workshop based on "dubious 
strategies", if there any. Happy to work with Marilia and anyone else 
who wants to work with us.

During the MAG consultation, we will discuss one by one each workshop. I 
save a few workshops last year from merging thanks from the feedback I 
get from Twitter and the IGF mailing list.  Ginger provides a lot of 
support to MAG members since she was monitoring what the list was saying 
and send the feedback to MAG members so they can act upon that.



On 5/12/11 6:46 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp 
> <mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>> wrote:
>
>     Perhaps our MAG members could do something?
>
> It would be great to have an update about discussions in the MAG. I 
> have heard from MAG members about a month ago that the Secretariat 
> would like to discuss proposals in MAG mailing list first, in order to 
> arrive at the open consultations with a draft list of selected 
> proposals and suggestions to merge.
>
> Did this discussion take place? If so, were the proposals under 
> "taking stocks" debated?
>
> Marília
>
>     Adam
>
>
>
>
>         Hi,
>
>         I think Louis  explained the motivation for the merger quite well.
>
>
>         On 12 May 2011, at 03:25, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>
>              ICC/BASIS and ISOC just want to snow the serious issues.
>             A Sesame street kind of nice talk. Don't merge.
>
>
>
>         Re;  On 12 May 2011, at 08:59, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
>              In any case, we should just be aware that if we do not
>             merge, other groups will probably try to impinge us with
>             the political burden of non-cooperation. We cannot let
>             this stick. There are always several IGF workshops on NN,
>             youth, etc. So why there can¹t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF
>             improvement?
>
>
>             From the vantage point of someone  who has watched the
>             process for many years, I think this is an important
>             caution.  The other protagonists, will be on chat together
>             and will be working to reinforce each others comments,
>             thus you will face a well spoken wall of opposition.  The
>             civil society reps are often more individualistic and are
>             not as well coordinated as supporting each others
>             positions in rapid succession.
>
>
>         In every break, the private sector and the internet community
>         caucus and plan their strategies for the next session.  Often
>         the civil society participants are more involved in being
>         upset at each other for one reason or another.
>
>         Or at least that is how it looked from my vantage point.
>
>         My recommendation, coordinate and stick to your positions.  
>         Consider that is is better to have you workshop kicked out and
>         protest than it is to have it turned in regurgitated pabulum.
>
>         a.
>
>
>         a.____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>         http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>         http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>         http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110512/5f39106b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From avri at ella.com  Thu May 12 15:25:31 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:25:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org>
Message-ID: <FE004EB0-F71C-4E6D-BE7E-C628D42FBE80@ella.com>

Hi,

It might help if, as seems to be done by other groups in the MAG, there were a constant Skype, or other IM, communications going on at all times among the Civil Society reps in the room and others from civil society

As I said, one often sees how the Business and Internet Community reps reinforce each other's arguments each taking a piece of the argument, and essentially take the air out of any opposition to the their point of view.  Working together, the civil society reps ought to be able to stand up to them.

This is not meant to point fingers or to say anyone has done something wrong, only to recommend that civil society start borrowing some of the very effective tactics some of our 'partners' have been using to their good advantage.  Business interests has been very effective at gaining advantage for their points of view often to the detriment of civil society. It is time to start turning the tables.

a.



On 12 May 2011, at 14:35, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

> Hi there,
> 
> The MAG work is quite "intensive" you can't consult each decision. All depend of what others will say
> or do as you know Adam.
> 
> I am only encouraging people to raise their voice if there are other workshops (beside the ones that IGC presented) that we should give high priority. There is still time to speak out. So please do so.
> 
> You should also give us trust to do our job since there is no logic to consult each step we made.
> 
> Katitza
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From avri at ella.com  Thu May 12 15:27:34 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:27:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] Grading Workshops
In-Reply-To: <4DCC2A5D.6020400@eff.org>
References: <4DCC2A5D.6020400@eff.org>
Message-ID: <518EE9B1-F283-4908-A2A4-0BF1556F9EB1@ella.com>

Hi,

This is a good idea, perhaps we can find a way to help with the reviews.

a.


On 12 May 2011, at 14:43, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

> Greetings:
> 
> I will start reading one by one the over 100 workshops that has been presented to see weather or not the workshops comply with "basic" requirements published in the IGF website (gender balance, region, etc):
> 
> 0 = not at all
> 1 =  has made a little effort to satisfy the criteria
> 2 = somewhat meets the criteria
> 3= fully meets the criteria
> 
> 
> We have only a week to do this and happy and happy to work with someone if someone is wiling to do so.! I will be available online and we can spend the whole day reading the workshops proposals.
> 
> The workshop proposals can be found at :http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2011/proposals
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 15:27:43 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:27:43 -0700
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <FE004EB0-F71C-4E6D-BE7E-C628D42FBE80@ella.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org> <FE004EB0-F71C-4E6D-BE7E-C628D42FBE80@ella.com>
Message-ID: <4DCC34AF.7050005@eff.org>

Happy to do so. I am working with Fouad and Valeria, and I have sent an 
email in private to everyone who raise their voice. I will copy to that 
group.

I just trashed out Skype due to the security hole. I might need to 
reinstall but not sure if the patch has been released yet!!!


On 5/12/11 12:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It might help if, as seems to be done by other groups in the MAG, there were a constant Skype, or other IM, communications going on at all times among the Civil Society reps in the room and others from civil society
>
> As I said, one often sees how the Business and Internet Community reps reinforce each other's arguments each taking a piece of the argument, and essentially take the air out of any opposition to the their point of view.  Working together, the civil society reps ought to be able to stand up to them.
>
> This is not meant to point fingers or to say anyone has done something wrong, only to recommend that civil society start borrowing some of the very effective tactics some of our 'partners' have been using to their good advantage.  Business interests has been very effective at gaining advantage for their points of view often to the detriment of civil society. It is time to start turning the tables.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 12 May 2011, at 14:35, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> The MAG work is quite "intensive" you can't consult each decision. All depend of what others will say
>> or do as you know Adam.
>>
>> I am only encouraging people to raise their voice if there are other workshops (beside the ones that IGC presented) that we should give high priority. There is still time to speak out. So please do so.
>>
>> You should also give us trust to do our job since there is no logic to consult each step we made.
>>
>> Katitza
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 15:29:03 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:29:03 -0700
Subject: [governance] Grading Workshops
In-Reply-To: <518EE9B1-F283-4908-A2A4-0BF1556F9EB1@ella.com>
References: <4DCC2A5D.6020400@eff.org> <518EE9B1-F283-4908-A2A4-0BF1556F9EB1@ella.com>
Message-ID: <4DCC34FF.2090004@eff.org>

sure. Let me know how you want to proceed and how we divide the work. 
Valeria and I will be meeting in two hours to do so.

On 5/12/11 12:27 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a good idea, perhaps we can find a way to help with the reviews.
>
> a.
>
>
> On 12 May 2011, at 14:43, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> Greetings:
>>
>> I will start reading one by one the over 100 workshops that has been presented to see weather or not the workshops comply with "basic" requirements published in the IGF website (gender balance, region, etc):
>>
>> 0 = not at all
>> 1 =  has made a little effort to satisfy the criteria
>> 2 = somewhat meets the criteria
>> 3= fully meets the criteria
>>
>>
>> We have only a week to do this and happy and happy to work with someone if someone is wiling to do so.! I will be available online and we can spend the whole day reading the workshops proposals.
>>
>> The workshop proposals can be found at :http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2011/proposals
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From katitza at eff.org  Thu May 12 15:44:11 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:44:11 -0700
Subject: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on
 theIndianproposal towards an IGF 2.0"
In-Reply-To: <FE004EB0-F71C-4E6D-BE7E-C628D42FBE80@ella.com>
References: <4DCB7035.6000508@ciroap.org> <20110512085358.3135915C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <4DCBA0BD.8080404@ciroap.org> <20110512103211.1EA1315C0DF@quill.bollow.ch> <BANLkTikoYxbuYyjp8dogx8SsvJMoPB0XdA@mail.gmail.com> <1664871329-1305211270-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-323906116-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <466028156-1305212235-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1137679346-@bda003.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <BANLkTikdvRvvrLTg_WXq6A529_y62PJBcg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinp1GzkbMrwwnEsqE+6faS8ZNDNtQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D831FB5-F79D-4A13-91D3-BB567961047D@gmail.com> <4DCC288B.1020803@eff.org> <FE004EB0-F71C-4E6D-BE7E-C628D42FBE80@ella.com>
Message-ID: <4DCC388B.5050808@eff.org>

On 5/12/11 12:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It might help if, as seems to be done by other groups in the MAG, there were a constant Skype, or other IM, communications going on at all times among the Civil Society reps in the room and others from civil society

This is true. We usually have support from the previous coordinators  
ie: Ginger. She was the one to set up the skype, provide feedback from 
the community to MAG, follow twitter etc.. very difficult to do everyone 
one person.

I truly would be happy to have help if someone is willing to do "actual" 
work.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at