From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Oct 31 18:16:45 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:16:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG going on In-Reply-To: References: <1320081340.82295.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message , at 22:46:48 on Mon, 31 Oct 2011, McTim writes >>> 3. Increase the number of the membership (count) of MAG Members to have >>> at least two members from each Country, one from CS and one from Internet >>> Regulating Authority from the same Country. >> >> That makes the MAG begin to sound like an ITU summit with perhaps 400 >> attendees. That's a rather different animal from the current one. > >exactly, and ~half of them would be regulators?? How is that balanced? Making it country-based might be convenient for some stakeholders, but it's not the traditional way that business and the technical community have been represented in the past. Would there be 192 of each of those invited as well? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 18:28:43 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:28:43 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG going on In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, The complete list of "broad agreements" follow below. They are very general and commonplace, but if we think that 90% of the text we tried to write on the last CSTD WG meeting was put inside brackets, it seems positive. If anything, it was a good dynamics to brake the ice. Tomorrow we will go into details on topic A (outcomes). May the force be with us. A - Shaping the outcomes of IGf meetings Broad agreement on the need to improve the outcome documententation of the IGF B - Working modalities including open consultations, MAG and the Secretariat Broad agreement on the need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG meetings transparent Broad agreement to have the Secretariat [remain independent and] based in Geneva Broad agreement to strengthen/expand the IGF Secretariat Broad agreement that the MAG should be more representative of all the groups that internet governance increasingly impacts Broad agreement that the use of remote participation tools and resources should be strengthened Broad agreement that the MAG needs a clear terms of reference and that the constitution of the MAG should be done in a transparent and documented fashion C - Funding of the IGF Broad agreement that additional voluntary funding should be sought, accepted and encouraged Broad agreement that funding should be stable, predictable and independent D - Broadening participation Broad agreement that the preparatory process needs to be more visible and for more stakeholders to participate in it Broad agreement on the need to reach out to more stakeholders Broad agreement on the need to enhance remote participation Broad agreement to increase and support participation from all stakeholder groups from developing countries in IGF and its prep process Broad agreement to increase IG4D topics in the IGF Broad agreement to continue to rotate the location of the IGF annually, to enable different regions to have easy access to IGF L - linking IGF to other related processes/mechanisms/bodies Broad agreement on the need to encourage greater links between national, regional and global IGF Broad agreement on the need to improve the links between the IGF and intergovernmental organizations and international organizations Marília On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > In the afternoon, we started to examine if there is broad (and > minimum) agreement on each of > the 5 topic categories identified in the morning: > > A) Shaping the outcomes of IGF meetings > B) Working modalities including open consultation, MAG and Secretariat > C) Funding of the IGF > D) Participation – broadening > E) Linking IGF to other related processes/mechanisms/bodies > > And then we reached the point of confusion – it seems very difficult > to reach some specific > agreement or consensus of so many different issues in limited time – > so that Chair suggested > to go into three small working groups and come back to plenary. > > Several governments showed resistance to this proposal and we went back to > exploring how to go forward as plenary. > > Some governments started to talk about more specifics of item A, and > then Marilia > pointed out that we should go over all 5 elements first without going > into subetantive > discussions, and we can go more specifics later. That was accepted by the > group. > > Then we agreed (tentatively): > “B Working modalities including open consultation MAG, and Secretariat > Broad agreement on need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG > deliberations transparent. > Broad agreement to strengthen the IGF secretariat” > Broad agreement that the MAG should be more representative of all the > groups that Internet Governance increasingly impacts. > Broad agreement that the use of remote participation tools and > resources should be strengthened. > Broad agreement that MAG needs clear Terms of Reference, constitution > of the MAG is done in a transparent and documented fashion. > > C Funding of the IGF > Broad agreement that additional voluntary funding should be sought, > accepted, and encouraged. > Broad agreement that funding is stable and predictable and independent. > > We have had several rounds of interesting exchanges of different views > before reaching these broad agreement. > > Another Coffee break now. > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 19:18:07 2011 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:18:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG going on In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congrats to all on what looks like some positive outcomes for developing economies. Thanks Izumi and Marilia for the great coverage, updates and advocacy. Rgds, Tracy On Oct 31, 2011 6:29 PM, "Marilia Maciel" wrote: > Dear all, > > The complete list of "broad agreements" follow below. They are very > general and commonplace, but if we think that 90% of the text we tried to > write on the last CSTD WG meeting was put inside brackets, it seems > positive. If anything, it was a good dynamics to brake the ice. Tomorrow we > will go into details on topic A (outcomes). May the force be with us. > > A - Shaping the outcomes of IGf meetings > Broad agreement on the need to improve the outcome documententation of the > IGF > > B - Working modalities including open consultations, MAG and the > Secretariat > Broad agreement on the need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG > meetings transparent > Broad agreement to have the Secretariat [remain independent and] based in > Geneva > Broad agreement to strengthen/expand the IGF Secretariat > Broad agreement that the MAG should be more representative of all the > groups that internet governance increasingly impacts > Broad agreement that the use of remote participation tools and resources > should be strengthened > Broad agreement that the MAG needs a clear terms of reference and that the > constitution of the MAG should be done in a transparent and documented > fashion > > C - Funding of the IGF > Broad agreement that additional voluntary funding should be sought, > accepted and encouraged > Broad agreement that funding should be stable, predictable and independent > > D - Broadening participation > Broad agreement that the preparatory process needs to be more visible and > for more stakeholders to participate in it > Broad agreement on the need to reach out to more stakeholders > Broad agreement on the need to enhance remote participation > Broad agreement to increase and support participation from all stakeholder > groups from developing countries in IGF and its prep process > Broad agreement to increase IG4D topics in the IGF > Broad agreement to continue to rotate the location of the IGF annually, to > enable different regions to have easy access to IGF > > L - linking IGF to other related processes/mechanisms/bodies > Broad agreement on the need to encourage greater links between national, > regional and global IGF > Broad agreement on the need to improve the links between the IGF and > intergovernmental organizations and international organizations > > > Marília > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> In the afternoon, we started to examine if there is broad (and >> minimum) agreement on each of >> the 5 topic categories identified in the morning: >> >> A) Shaping the outcomes of IGF meetings >> B) Working modalities including open consultation, MAG and >> Secretariat >> C) Funding of the IGF >> D) Participation – broadening >> E) Linking IGF to other related processes/mechanisms/bodies >> >> And then we reached the point of confusion – it seems very difficult >> to reach some specific >> agreement or consensus of so many different issues in limited time – >> so that Chair suggested >> to go into three small working groups and come back to plenary. >> >> Several governments showed resistance to this proposal and we went back to >> exploring how to go forward as plenary. >> >> Some governments started to talk about more specifics of item A, and >> then Marilia >> pointed out that we should go over all 5 elements first without going >> into subetantive >> discussions, and we can go more specifics later. That was accepted by the >> group. >> >> Then we agreed (tentatively): >> “B Working modalities including open consultation MAG, and Secretariat >> Broad agreement on need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG >> deliberations transparent. >> Broad agreement to strengthen the IGF secretariat” >> Broad agreement that the MAG should be more representative of all the >> groups that Internet Governance increasingly impacts. >> Broad agreement that the use of remote participation tools and >> resources should be strengthened. >> Broad agreement that MAG needs clear Terms of Reference, constitution >> of the MAG is done in a transparent and documented fashion. >> >> C Funding of the IGF >> Broad agreement that additional voluntary funding should be sought, >> accepted, and encouraged. >> Broad agreement that funding is stable and predictable and independent. >> >> We have had several rounds of interesting exchanges of different views >> before reaching these broad agreement. >> >> Another Coffee break now. >> >> izumi >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 19:28:56 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:28:56 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Indian proposal => "IGF improvements" In-Reply-To: <06B943D5-5A15-4E16-9C2C-726FE05279B5@uzh.ch> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> <549EFAF4-B302-4E15-B666-7C167CE71AB8@uzh.ch> <06B943D5-5A15-4E16-9C2C-726FE05279B5@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi Bill, It is getting late here, so I will take only 2 of your points and come back on the others later. On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:22 AM, William Drake wrote: > > If an EC mechanism is created, I would never want it to disregard IGF's > inputs, would you? > > > BILL: I would not want an intergovernmental EC mechanism to be created, > therefore I would not want the IGF restructured for the purpose of > providing inputs into it. But IGF discussions have already influenced > other sphere, e.g. the OECD's decision to allow TC and CS participation, > some of ICANN's internal reforms, etc. > MARILIA: The discussion about improvements with respect to outcomes is based on the feeling shared by many actors that the rich discussions that take place in the IGF have not been captured in a way that: a) can serve as input in global policy making; b) can be communicated to other bodies; c) can create a track of IGF discussions, so we can see improvements from year to year. One proposal advanced by many of us in CS is that more concrete outcomes should capture convergences and divergent policy options, as explained in detail before. This improvement would be made after years of discussion and after many people in IGF have made claims for more concrete outcomes. It would not be made with the purpose to provide inputs into an non-existant EC mechanism. > > BILL: I have been for a more outcome oriented IGF since before there was > an IGF. But if there is an intergovernmental EC mechanism soaking up all > the attention of governments and generating an untold number of > irresolvable conflicts, I agree with Milton that IGF could end up > marginalized. Many G77 governments have repeatedly demonstrated that they > don't particularly care about having a space to talk to stakeholders and > engage in collective learning. What they want is what's been proposed, an > UNCTAD of the Internet that nominally can facilitate treaty negotiations > and GA resolutions. The model here would not look like OECD deliberations. > It'd be more like the CSTD. > MARILIA: Well, then you agree that more concrete outcomes are the way to go, you just don't think it is strategically interesting to move on that direction. So, if got your point, if there is no EC, outcomes would be good. But if EC comes into existence, then outcomes from IGF would become a bad thing? I dont understand why. In addition, if the IGF continues for more 5 years without providing more concrete outcomes, do you really think that it will remain relevant? That people and organizations who are asking for concrete outcomes will continue attending happily? That governments will still be there (including western governments?) Countries who have funding maybe will send one or two low level officials. But most likely countries will resort to their established regional platforms. We are currently discussing the meeting in UK. That may become more frequent. And without a stronger IGF, that sends messaged, there is little that can be done to prevent that trend, or to call attention to more legitimately debated policy options. Best, Marília -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 19:32:44 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 12:32:44 +1300 Subject: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034DA0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <1115D927-9D4E-4A8D-9B1F-EBC504428956@acm.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034DA0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In any democracy, parliamentary rule dictates the formulation of laws in the midst of an ecosystem in which the Doctrine of Separation of powers exist where the three arms of government are independent and constitutionally mandated to act as check and balance each other. The reality is that in the 192 member countries that make up the United Nations and the few countries that are not part of the UN, this of course differs, there are some where rule is by the Executive because of power of the "gun" and are not democracies etc and we have a complex range of diverse governance models amongst countries and territories. It is the norm for democracies, that the only legitimate constitutionally enshrined exception is when there is a State of Emergency and the President invokes the Doctrine of Necessity. There are some jurisdictions that have abused this process to legitimise political rule (I won't get into that but can discuss offline, lest I be accused of sedition) ;) For the Doctrine of Necessity to be invoked there has to be proof (visible) that it is necessary and relevant for the temporary suspension and derogation of certain rights and privileges. With the increasing cyber security concerns and the approaches that governments all over the world are taking (I see this is an indicator in itself of the political climate in the globe today) as governments all over the world are declaring that it is a matter of national priority etc, we are witnessing all over the globe the new battle between the state and the private sector over infrastructure and when is it legitimate for governments or states to step in etc? Of course at the end of the day, there is only cause and effect. (Thinking out loud: would the threat of "cyber security" justify intergovernmental control? I would say, no because at the end of the day, one still needs a multistakeholder approach to handling things like cyber security threats. What sort of check and balance mechanisms do we need to ensure that the end user interests and rights are protected? What is interesting is that when these plays out in the global context, how does the end user fare? What is the role of civil society in the evolution? What type of governance models will help preserve an open and free internet? My 2 cents. On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Avri, > > I am missing how a meeting with a bunch of speeches, including one British > minister with a pre-existing talking points agenda (William Hague), gets to > point of multiple governments reaching consensus. > > Last week the German and French government didn't even want the British PM > in the same room with them as they struggled to save the Euro; and now we > worry (with all due respect) that William Hague will set the global agenda > for cybersecurity? Doubt it. > > Stranger things have happened I admit, but as our on-site reporter hinted, > odds of a major advance given the structure of the meeting seems - very > low. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] on behalf of > Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:31 PM > To: IGC > Subject: RE: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] > Cyber Security 2011 > > On 31 Oct 2011, at 06:31, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15355739 UK seeks 'consensus' at > cyberspace conference > > > and earlier message asked: > > > On 30 Oct 2011, at 14:59, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > >> I'm unclear what people are alarmed about; > > > > Me personally? It is that Governments at a ministerial level reach a > consensus, without proper multistakeholder participation and then work to > cram it down the collective throats of the world. I fear that such a > consensus would be at the expense of the freedoms most of us hold dear, but > that governments often find troublesome when trying to control their > populations. And I feat that in any follow-up, Civil Society would find > itself fighting against the tide - agreeable to the Business community > because it spurs the sale of further hardware and software systems, but > deleterious to the public good. > > That is what alarms me. > > avri > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 19:33:58 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 12:33:58 +1300 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG going on In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Marilia for the update this is useful. :) On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google < tracyhackshaw at gmail.com> wrote: > Congrats to all on what looks like some positive outcomes for developing > economies. > > Thanks Izumi and Marilia for the great coverage, updates and advocacy. > > Rgds, > > Tracy > On Oct 31, 2011 6:29 PM, "Marilia Maciel" wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> The complete list of "broad agreements" follow below. They are very >> general and commonplace, but if we think that 90% of the text we tried to >> write on the last CSTD WG meeting was put inside brackets, it seems >> positive. If anything, it was a good dynamics to brake the ice. Tomorrow we >> will go into details on topic A (outcomes). May the force be with us. >> >> A - Shaping the outcomes of IGf meetings >> Broad agreement on the need to improve the outcome documententation of >> the IGF >> >> B - Working modalities including open consultations, MAG and the >> Secretariat >> Broad agreement on the need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG >> meetings transparent >> Broad agreement to have the Secretariat [remain independent and] based in >> Geneva >> Broad agreement to strengthen/expand the IGF Secretariat >> Broad agreement that the MAG should be more representative of all the >> groups that internet governance increasingly impacts >> Broad agreement that the use of remote participation tools and resources >> should be strengthened >> Broad agreement that the MAG needs a clear terms of reference and that >> the constitution of the MAG should be done in a transparent and documented >> fashion >> >> C - Funding of the IGF >> Broad agreement that additional voluntary funding should be sought, >> accepted and encouraged >> Broad agreement that funding should be stable, predictable and >> independent >> >> D - Broadening participation >> Broad agreement that the preparatory process needs to be more visible and >> for more stakeholders to participate in it >> Broad agreement on the need to reach out to more stakeholders >> Broad agreement on the need to enhance remote participation >> Broad agreement to increase and support participation from all >> stakeholder groups from developing countries in IGF and its prep process >> Broad agreement to increase IG4D topics in the IGF >> Broad agreement to continue to rotate the location of the IGF annually, >> to enable different regions to have easy access to IGF >> >> L - linking IGF to other related processes/mechanisms/bodies >> Broad agreement on the need to encourage greater links between national, >> regional and global IGF >> Broad agreement on the need to improve the links between the IGF and >> intergovernmental organizations and international organizations >> >> >> Marília >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> In the afternoon, we started to examine if there is broad (and >>> minimum) agreement on each of >>> the 5 topic categories identified in the morning: >>> >>> A) Shaping the outcomes of IGF meetings >>> B) Working modalities including open consultation, MAG and >>> Secretariat >>> C) Funding of the IGF >>> D) Participation – broadening >>> E) Linking IGF to other related processes/mechanisms/bodies >>> >>> And then we reached the point of confusion – it seems very difficult >>> to reach some specific >>> agreement or consensus of so many different issues in limited time – >>> so that Chair suggested >>> to go into three small working groups and come back to plenary. >>> >>> Several governments showed resistance to this proposal and we went back >>> to >>> exploring how to go forward as plenary. >>> >>> Some governments started to talk about more specifics of item A, and >>> then Marilia >>> pointed out that we should go over all 5 elements first without going >>> into subetantive >>> discussions, and we can go more specifics later. That was accepted by >>> the group. >>> >>> Then we agreed (tentatively): >>> “B Working modalities including open consultation MAG, and Secretariat >>> Broad agreement on need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG >>> deliberations transparent. >>> Broad agreement to strengthen the IGF secretariat” >>> Broad agreement that the MAG should be more representative of all the >>> groups that Internet Governance increasingly impacts. >>> Broad agreement that the use of remote participation tools and >>> resources should be strengthened. >>> Broad agreement that MAG needs clear Terms of Reference, constitution >>> of the MAG is done in a transparent and documented fashion. >>> >>> C Funding of the IGF >>> Broad agreement that additional voluntary funding should be sought, >>> accepted, and encouraged. >>> Broad agreement that funding is stable and predictable and independent. >>> >>> We have had several rounds of interesting exchanges of different views >>> before reaching these broad agreement. >>> >>> Another Coffee break now. >>> >>> izumi >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for Technology and Society >> Getulio Vargas Foundation >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Oct 1 03:16:34 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 10:16:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] Handover notes Message-ID: As I step down, here are my notes about what lies ahead for the next coordinator of the IGC and Izumi: Wolfgang plans to prepare a non-paper which would be a starting point for the development of a civil society statement of principles on Internet governance. We would form a working group of IGC members and representatives from each of the other NGOs who signed our open letter on the Code of Conduct on Information Security, to produce from this a statement of principles that will go out for broader comment. The result of that can be tabled at upcoming meetings of the CSTD working group and the G-20 as a draft. During the course of the year we will gather signatures and present it at other gatherings like EuroDIG, before finally formally launching it at next year's IGF, where it can hopefully feed into multi-stakeholder discussions. I would encourage the coordinators to maintain the high level dialogue that we established at this year's IGF with the US and EU governments as well as with IBSA governments. Despite all the opposition to the IBSA proposal at this year's IGF, remember that similar opposition was expressed for years about the IGF producing outputs, yet that now seems inevitable. Therefore we should not assume that the IBSA proposal won't have legs, and we should engage proactively with its proponents to help mould the proposal into something we would find acceptable, should it go forward. We are particularly fortunate to have members such as Marilia, Raquel and Veridiana who have contact with the Brazilian government and could act as liaisons. As I promised, I have spoken informally to a couple of funders about the possibility of the IGC applying for a grant to enable it to incorporate, get ECOSOC accredited, host its own website and mailing list, fund some travel for its coordinators, and maybe take on some part-time administrative help. Their response was noncommittal though generally encouraging. So if the IGC is interested, this option is on the table. Another option discussed at our meeting was for one of the existing NGOs that is aligned with the IGC to take the IGC under its wing as an activity, I suppose in the way that the IETF is an activity of ISOC. The coordinators may choose to explore this option also. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2212 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Oct 1 04:23:08 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 11:23:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] Nominees for next co-coordinator position Message-ID: <290EA09D-040C-4EF5-9FE9-444E563217DB@ciroap.org> I am pleased to nominate Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala (Pacific) and Raquel Gatto (Latin America) as candidates for the position of IGC coordinator. Also, nominating themselves (thank you!), are Asif Kabani (Asia) and Sonigitu Ekpe (Africa). This means that we have four candidates, equal numbers of each gender, from four different Southern regions. This is enough if we were to call the election now, but we will leave it open for a little longer for others to nominate themselves or to be nominated. Please, if you would like yourself or someone else to be considered for the position of IGC coordinator in the next election, send your nomination by next Saturday 8 October. I will begin to prepare the election process after that. It would also be helpful if each of the candidates could post an election statement to the list, which will also be included on the voting website. As a guide, you may wish to address one or more of the issues that I posted in my last message to the list titled "Handover notes", but it's up to you. Thanks to all our candidates and good luck! -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2212 bytes Desc: not available URL: From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 15:32:48 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 07:32:48 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Nominees for next co-coordinator position In-Reply-To: <290EA09D-040C-4EF5-9FE9-444E563217DB@ciroap.org> References: <290EA09D-040C-4EF5-9FE9-444E563217DB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thanks Jeremy for the nomination. I am in Dubai Airport awaiting the long journey home. I am glad to accept the nomination and will post a statement when I reach Fiji. Warm Regards, Sala On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am pleased to nominate Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala (Pacific) and > Raquel Gatto (Latin America) as candidates for the position of IGC > coordinator. Also, nominating themselves (thank you!), are Asif Kabani > (Asia) and Sonigitu Ekpe (Africa). > > This means that we have four candidates, equal numbers of each gender, from > four different Southern regions. This is enough if we were to call the > election now, but we will leave it open for a little longer for others to > nominate themselves or to be nominated. > > Please, if you would like yourself or someone else to be considered for the > position of IGC coordinator in the next election, send your nomination by > next Saturday 8 October. I will begin to prepare the election process after > that. > > It would also be helpful if each of the candidates could post an election > statement to the list, which will also be included on the voting website. > As a guide, you may wish to address one or more of the issues that I posted > in my last message to the list titled "Handover notes", but it's up to you. > > Thanks to all our candidates and good luck! > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Sun Oct 2 02:54:26 2011 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 10:54:26 +0400 Subject: [governance] Azerbaijan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, In relation to the next venue for the IGF 2012 in Azerbaijan this is an interesting reading: http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2011/09/30/igf-venue-controversy/ Best regards, Narine On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > This evening, Izumi and I raised civil society's concerns about the > selection of Azerbaijan as the next host country for the IGF, with Thomas > Steizer, Assistant Secretary-General at UN DESA, and his deputy Vyacheslav > Cherkasov. They indicated to us that the human rights concerns had been > raised with Azerbaijan ahead of the IGF, and that assurances had been made > that the freedoms of those attending the 2012 IGF would be upheld, not only > for foreign delegates but also for locals (and specifically including > Armenians). The host country agreement contains specific provisions on > these points. (I asked for a copy of it, but it seemed that could be a > problem.) > > We also discussed the issue of cost. Thomas responded that he would take > this issue up with the prospective hosts and ask them whether low-cost > accommodation could be provided for IGF delegates. I will follow up with > him by email to remind him of his commitment to do this. (Of course, this > would do nothing to ease the cost of air travel.) > > Given our immediate lack of an alternative host country to propose, there > seemed to be little we could do to avoid the selection of Azerbaijan as host > country for 2012. For 2013, Indonesia has offered to host. > > On a sour note, someone had been spreading rumours that civil society had > been planning a demonstration to protest against the selection of > Azerbaijan, which I assured Chengetai (though I'm not sure whether he > believed me) were baseless. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > Narine Khachatryan Media Education Center Yerevan, Armenia http://www.safe.am/ http://www.immasin.am http://www.mediaeducation.am/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Oct 2 04:20:53 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 10:20:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Nominees for next co-coordinator position In-Reply-To: <290EA09D-040C-4EF5-9FE9-444E563217DB@ciroap.org> References: <290EA09D-040C-4EF5-9FE9-444E563217DB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <487DE54D-A98F-49EB-8B5F-94B26BC6C75B@acm.org> I am happy to see this list of nominees. I would like to make a request of the nominees. In addition to the point Jeremy made in his note, I would like to see the candidates address issues like the following: - with the meeting in Azerbaijan, other than worrying about the cost of hotel rooms and the difficulty in finding flight that get there, what should we as Civil Society be doing to make sure that our time in Azerbaijan is as productive as possible in supporting the voices of freedom in that country. How do we prepare, how do we support, and how we make sure that after we leave there is a watching of the suppression that always comes after a brief open window of freedom that the IGF brings. - how do we make sure that the voice of civil society is as organized and effective as possible in the approach to the WSIS review meeting in 4 years. While 4 years may seem a long way away, it is the same amount of time as was consumed by the prepcoms to the original WSIS meetings. It is now time to start organizing towards those events if we want civil society to have at least as much voice as we had in Tunis. This includes everything from breadth of organization, to the machinery for producing position papers and the funding to get as many people as possible to all the upcoming meeting. avri On 1 Oct 2011, at 10:23, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am pleased to nominate Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala (Pacific) and Raquel Gatto (Latin America) as candidates for the position of IGC coordinator. Also, nominating themselves (thank you!), are Asif Kabani (Asia) and Sonigitu Ekpe (Africa). > > This means that we have four candidates, equal numbers of each gender, from four different Southern regions. This is enough if we were to call the election now, but we will leave it open for a little longer for others to nominate themselves or to be nominated. > > Please, if you would like yourself or someone else to be considered for the position of IGC coordinator in the next election, send your nomination by next Saturday 8 October. I will begin to prepare the election process after that. > > It would also be helpful if each of the candidates could post an election statement to the list, which will also be included on the voting website. As a guide, you may wish to address one or more of the issues that I posted in my last message to the list titled "Handover notes", but it's up to you. > > Thanks to all our candidates and good luck! > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Oct 2 04:22:11 2011 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 11:22:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Nominees for next co-coordinator position In-Reply-To: References: <290EA09D-040C-4EF5-9FE9-444E563217DB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I second the nomination, Sala would be great at this… Bill On Oct 1, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Thanks Jeremy for the nomination. I am in Dubai Airport awaiting the long journey home. I am glad to accept the nomination and will post a statement when I reach Fiji. > > Warm Regards, > Sala > > On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am pleased to nominate Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala (Pacific) and Raquel Gatto (Latin America) as candidates for the position of IGC coordinator. Also, nominating themselves (thank you!), are Asif Kabani (Asia) and Sonigitu Ekpe (Africa). > > This means that we have four candidates, equal numbers of each gender, from four different Southern regions. This is enough if we were to call the election now, but we will leave it open for a little longer for others to nominate themselves or to be nominated. > > Please, if you would like yourself or someone else to be considered for the position of IGC coordinator in the next election, send your nomination by next Saturday 8 October. I will begin to prepare the election process after that. > > It would also be helpful if each of the candidates could post an election statement to the list, which will also be included on the voting website. As a guide, you may wish to address one or more of the issues that I posted in my last message to the list titled "Handover notes", but it's up to you. > > Thanks to all our candidates and good luck! > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Oct 2 07:33:58 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 19:33:58 +0800 Subject: [governance] Nominees for next co-coordinator position In-Reply-To: <487DE54D-A98F-49EB-8B5F-94B26BC6C75B@acm.org> References: <290EA09D-040C-4EF5-9FE9-444E563217DB@ciroap.org> <487DE54D-A98F-49EB-8B5F-94B26BC6C75B@acm.org> Message-ID: <4E884C26.2060701@ciroap.org> We have a fifth nominee now, Imran Ahmed Shah. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @Consumers_Int Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2309 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Oct 2 08:01:58 2011 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 14:01:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Handover notes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E8852B6.5080602@wzb.eu> > * I would encourage the coordinators to maintain the high level > dialogue that we established at this year's IGF with the US and EU > governments as well as with IBSA governments. Despite all the > opposition to the IBSA proposal at this year's IGF, remember that > similar opposition was expressed for years about the IGF producing > outputs, yet that now seems inevitable. Just for the record. This is Jeremy's opinion. In my view, we are as far away from output in the form of official recommendations as a couple of years ago. Not even within civil society there is a unanimous view on this. jeanette Therefore we should not > assume that the IBSA proposal won't have legs, and we should engage > proactively with its proponents to help mould the proposal into > something we would find acceptable, should it go forward. We are > particularly fortunate to have members such as Marilia, Raquel and > Veridiana who have contact with the Brazilian government and could > act as liaisons. > * As I promised, I have spoken informally to a couple of funders about > the possibility of the IGC applying for a grant to enable it to > incorporate, get ECOSOC accredited, host its own website and mailing > list, fund some travel for its coordinators, and maybe take on some > part-time administrative help. Their response was noncommittal > though generally encouraging. So if the IGC is interested, this > option is on the table. Another option discussed at our meeting was > for one of the existing NGOs that is aligned with the IGC to take > the IGC under its wing as an activity, I suppose in the way that the > IETF is an activity of ISOC. The coordinators may choose to explore > this option also. > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent > and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member > organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international > movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > _www.consumersinternational.org _ > _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Oct 2 10:14:51 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 19:44:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nominees for next co-coordinator position In-Reply-To: <487DE54D-A98F-49EB-8B5F-94B26BC6C75B@acm.org> References: <290EA09D-040C-4EF5-9FE9-444E563217DB@ciroap.org> <487DE54D-A98F-49EB-8B5F-94B26BC6C75B@acm.org> Message-ID: <4E8871DB.4080602@itforchange.net> Dear All I think that nominees should just tell us their own vision, without having to follow leads, especially as provided by existing caucus coordinators, which to that extent looks authoritative. On the other hand, if the agenda of caucus work in the next year, and the following ones, is being formed, there is much many of us may have to say, but I dont see the present one as such an exercise. Parminder On Sunday 02 October 2011 01:50 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > I am happy to see this list of nominees. > > I would like to make a request of the nominees. In addition to the point Jeremy made in his note, I would like to see the candidates address issues like the following: > > - with the meeting in Azerbaijan, other than worrying about the cost of hotel rooms and the difficulty in finding flight that get there, what should we as Civil Society be doing to make sure that our time in Azerbaijan is as productive as possible in supporting the voices of freedom in that country. How do we prepare, how do we support, and how we make sure that after we leave there is a watching of the suppression that always comes after a brief open window of freedom that the IGF brings. > > - how do we make sure that the voice of civil society is as organized and effective as possible in the approach to the WSIS review meeting in 4 years. While 4 years may seem a long way away, it is the same amount of time as was consumed by the prepcoms to the original WSIS meetings. It is now time to start organizing towards those events if we want civil society to have at least as much voice as we had in Tunis. This includes everything from breadth of organization, to the machinery for producing position papers and the funding to get as many people as possible to all the upcoming meeting. > > avri > > On 1 Oct 2011, at 10:23, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > >> I am pleased to nominate Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala (Pacific) and Raquel Gatto (Latin America) as candidates for the position of IGC coordinator. Also, nominating themselves (thank you!), are Asif Kabani (Asia) and Sonigitu Ekpe (Africa). >> >> This means that we have four candidates, equal numbers of each gender, from four different Southern regions. This is enough if we were to call the election now, but we will leave it open for a little longer for others to nominate themselves or to be nominated. >> >> Please, if you would like yourself or someone else to be considered for the position of IGC coordinator in the next election, send your nomination by next Saturday 8 October. I will begin to prepare the election process after that. >> >> It would also be helpful if each of the candidates could post an election statement to the list, which will also be included on the voting website. As a guide, you may wish to address one or more of the issues that I posted in my last message to the list titled "Handover notes", but it's up to you. >> >> Thanks to all our candidates and good luck! >> >> -- >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. >> www.consumersinternational.org >> Twitter @ConsumersInt >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Oct 2 10:17:28 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 19:47:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nominees for next co-coordinator position In-Reply-To: <4E8871DB.4080602@itforchange.net> References: <290EA09D-040C-4EF5-9FE9-444E563217DB@ciroap.org> <487DE54D-A98F-49EB-8B5F-94B26BC6C75B@acm.org> <4E8871DB.4080602@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4E887278.4000305@itforchange.net> On Sunday 02 October 2011 07:44 PM, parminder wrote: > Dear All > > I think that nominees should just tell us their own vision, without > having to follow leads, especially as provided by existing caucus > coordinators, which to that extent looks authoritative. I say this especially since any pre-election statements of those standing for elections are kind of election promises, and the newly elected coordinator would rightly find somewhat bound by the corresponding expectations. parminder > On the other hand, if the agenda of caucus work in the next year, and > the following ones, is being formed, there is much many of us may have > to say, but I dont see the present one as such an exercise. > > Parminder > > On Sunday 02 October 2011 01:50 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> I am happy to see this list of nominees. >> >> I would like to make a request of the nominees. In addition to the point Jeremy made in his note, I would like to see the candidates address issues like the following: >> >> - with the meeting in Azerbaijan, other than worrying about the cost of hotel rooms and the difficulty in finding flight that get there, what should we as Civil Society be doing to make sure that our time in Azerbaijan is as productive as possible in supporting the voices of freedom in that country. How do we prepare, how do we support, and how we make sure that after we leave there is a watching of the suppression that always comes after a brief open window of freedom that the IGF brings. >> >> - how do we make sure that the voice of civil society is as organized and effective as possible in the approach to the WSIS review meeting in 4 years. While 4 years may seem a long way away, it is the same amount of time as was consumed by the prepcoms to the original WSIS meetings. It is now time to start organizing towards those events if we want civil society to have at least as much voice as we had in Tunis. This includes everything from breadth of organization, to the machinery for producing position papers and the funding to get as many people as possible to all the upcoming meeting. >> >> avri >> >> On 1 Oct 2011, at 10:23, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >>> I am pleased to nominate Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala (Pacific) and Raquel Gatto (Latin America) as candidates for the position of IGC coordinator. Also, nominating themselves (thank you!), are Asif Kabani (Asia) and Sonigitu Ekpe (Africa). >>> >>> This means that we have four candidates, equal numbers of each gender, from four different Southern regions. This is enough if we were to call the election now, but we will leave it open for a little longer for others to nominate themselves or to be nominated. >>> >>> Please, if you would like yourself or someone else to be considered for the position of IGC coordinator in the next election, send your nomination by next Saturday 8 October. I will begin to prepare the election process after that. >>> >>> It would also be helpful if each of the candidates could post an election statement to the list, which will also be included on the voting website. As a guide, you may wish to address one or more of the issues that I posted in my last message to the list titled "Handover notes", but it's up to you. >>> >>> Thanks to all our candidates and good luck! >>> >>> -- >>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Project Coordinator >>> Consumers International >>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. >>> www.consumersinternational.org >>> Twitter @ConsumersInt >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Oct 2 11:50:14 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:50:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nominees for next co-coordinator position In-Reply-To: <4E8871DB.4080602@itforchange.net> References: <290EA09D-040C-4EF5-9FE9-444E563217DB@ciroap.org> <487DE54D-A98F-49EB-8B5F-94B26BC6C75B@acm.org> <4E8871DB.4080602@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4E8871DB.4080602 at itforchange.net>, at 19:44:51 on Sun, 2 Oct 2011, parminder writes >I think that nominees should just tell us their own vision If that's a political vision, then perhaps the co-ordinators are getting a little too much like elected presidents. I'd rather they told us what resources they could call upon to be good organisers and consensus builders, and how they envisage delivering the commitment of travelling to the various meetings (Geneva-centric continues to be a theme) in order to be both the spokesperson and researcher for the caucus. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Oct 2 12:07:19 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 19:07:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] Handover notes In-Reply-To: <4E8852B6.5080602@wzb.eu> References: <4E8852B6.5080602@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Despite all the >> opposition to the IBSA proposal at this year's IGF, remember that >> similar opposition was expressed for years about the IGF producing >> outputs, yet that now seems inevitable. >> > > > Just for the record. This is Jeremy's opinion. In my view, we are as far > away from output in the form of official recommendations as a couple of > years ago. Not even within civil society there is a unanimous view on this. > +1 always nice to see you again madame, as well as the rest of the crew who managed to make it to Nairobi !! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Sun Oct 2 17:58:05 2011 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 23:58:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Azerbaijan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8012943.69014.1317592685856.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e16> Thanks to Narine for this declaration of Global Voices about the unilateral decision on the venue of the next IGF in Azerbaidjan. However, there is a big mistake in the text of the GV declaration : Tunis was the venue of the WSIS (and not the IGF), and there isn't any cause to effect relation between the Tunisian revolution -five years later- and the WSIS venue. Overall there were social and human right issues and the Tunisian People was fed-up with its dictatorial regime. And succeeded because some of them paid by their lives ! Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT    > Message du 02/10/11 08:55 > De : "Narine Khachatryan" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Azerbaijan > > Dear All,  > > In relation to the next venue for the IGF 2012 in Azerbaijan this is an  interesting reading: http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2011/09/30/igf-venue-controversy/  Best regards, Narine > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > This evening, Izumi and I raised civil society's concerns about the selection of Azerbaijan as the next host country for the IGF, with Thomas Steizer, Assistant Secretary-General at UN DESA, and his deputy Vyacheslav Cherkasov.  They indicated to us that the human rights concerns had been raised with Azerbaijan ahead of the IGF, and that assurances had been made that the freedoms of those attending the 2012 IGF would be upheld, not only for foreign delegates but also for locals (and specifically including Armenians).  The host country agreement contains specific provisions on these points.  (I asked for a copy of it, but it seemed that could be a problem.) > We also discussed the issue of cost.  Thomas responded that he would take this issue up with the prospective hosts and ask them whether low-cost accommodation could be provided for IGF delegates.  I will follow up with him by email to remind him of his commitment to do this.  (Of course, this would do nothing to ease the cost of air travel.) > > Given our immediate lack of an alternative host country to propose, there seemed to be little we could do to avoid the selection of Azerbaijan as host country for 2012.  For 2013, Indonesia has offered to host. > On a sour note, someone had been spreading rumours that civil society had been planning a demonstration to protest against the selection of Azerbaijan, which I assured Chengetai (though I'm not sure whether he believed me) were baseless. > --  > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > >   Narine Khachatryan > Media Education Center > Yerevan, Armenia > http://www.safe.am/ http://www.immasin.am  http://www.mediaeducation.am/ > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Oct 3 01:02:17 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:02:17 +0800 Subject: [governance] Moving the mailing list, revisited Message-ID: <4E8941D9.6060100@ciroap.org> Bill Drake has brought to my attention that one of the former CPSR officers is paying a monthly fee to host our mailing list, whereas previously I had been told that two years had been paid up in advance so that there was less urgency to move. If that is wrong, then it would be nice of us to move the list sooner rather than later. I raised the idea of moving it back in January (http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2011-01/msg00110.html), but the response at that time was indecisive so nothing happened. At this stage my recommended option is for me to move it to igf-online.net, which uses the same software, so all of the old archives will easily be preserved. Unavoidably, the address of the list would change from governance at lists.cpsr.org to governance at igf-online.net. It is also unavoidably dependent on my and/or Consumers International's ongoing patronage. However this is a better option than moving the list to the APC server which hosts our website (assuming that were possible), as the latter does not run the same mailing list software, so it would be harder to migrate. Also, it is still reliant on someone else's ongoing patronage. Alternatively we can wait and see whether the IGC decides to raise some funding, in which case it could pay for its own hosting and the website and mailing list could live together. This is the best longer term option, because is allows us to be self-reliant for as long as the funding is there. A decision on this needs to be made... -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Oct 3 01:22:35 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:22:35 +0800 Subject: [governance] Handover notes In-Reply-To: <4E8852B6.5080602@wzb.eu> References: <4E8852B6.5080602@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4E89469B.2010208@ciroap.org> On 02/10/11 20:01, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> * I would encourage the coordinators to maintain the high level >> dialogue that we established at this year's IGF with the US and EU >> governments as well as with IBSA governments. Despite all the >> opposition to the IBSA proposal at this year's IGF, remember that >> similar opposition was expressed for years about the IGF producing >> outputs, yet that now seems inevitable. > > Just for the record. This is Jeremy's opinion. In my view, we are as > far away from output in the form of official recommendations as a > couple of years ago. Not even within civil society there is a > unanimous view on this. I agree, official recommendations are not likely. But almost everyone is now talking about some form of more tangible output, whereas previously it couldn't even be discussed. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From aizu at anr.org Mon Oct 3 04:21:19 2011 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:21:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] Moving the mailing list, revisited In-Reply-To: <4E8941D9.6060100@ciroap.org> References: <4E8941D9.6060100@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thank you Jeremy for raising or reminding this issue. Just for the reference, how much in general it would cos to have our own server, say current level of functions with web and mailing list, say for five years? If it is not so significant, we can run a one-time fund-raising campaign to reach that amount. izumi 2011/10/3 Jeremy Malcolm : > Bill Drake has brought to my attention that one of the former CPSR officers > is paying a monthly fee to host our mailing list, whereas previously I had > been told that two years had been paid up in advance so that there was less > urgency to move. > > If that is wrong, then it would be nice of us to move the list sooner rather > than later.  I raised the idea of moving it back in January > (http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2011-01/msg00110.html), but the > response at that time was indecisive so nothing happened. > > At this stage my recommended option is for me to move it to igf-online.net, > which uses the same software, so all of the old archives will easily be > preserved.  Unavoidably, the address of the list would change from > governance at lists.cpsr.org to governance at igf-online.net.  It is also > unavoidably dependent on my and/or Consumers International's ongoing > patronage. > > However this is a better option than moving the list to the APC server which > hosts our website (assuming that were possible), as the latter does not run > the same mailing list software, so it would be harder to migrate.  Also, it > is still reliant on someone else's ongoing patronage. > > Alternatively we can wait and see whether the IGC decides to raise some > funding, in which case it could pay for its own hosting and the website and > mailing list could live together.  This is the best longer term option, > because is allows us to be self-reliant for as long as the funding is there. > > A decision on this needs to be made... > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Oct 3 04:33:31 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:33:31 +0800 Subject: [governance] Moving the mailing list, revisited In-Reply-To: References: <4E8941D9.6060100@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4E89735B.2010809@ciroap.org> On 03/10/11 16:21, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Thank you Jeremy for raising or reminding this issue. > > Just for the reference, how much in general it would cos to have our > own server, say current level of functions with web and mailing list, > say for five years? > > If it is not so significant, we can run a one-time fund-raising campaign > to reach that amount. Sure, it could be as low as $5-10 per month, which for 5 years is just $300-$600. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Oct 3 06:06:39 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:06:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Moving the mailing list, revisited In-Reply-To: References: <4E8941D9.6060100@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message , at 17:21:19 on Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Izumi AIZU writes >we can run a one-time fund-raising campaign Much simpler, why not run such a campaign to pay CPSR's fees for the next two years? Then revisit it in the light of whatever's happening then. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 3 15:04:14 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 04:04:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] The Economist at the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <4E8941D9.6060100@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Economist coverage of the IGF: Leader article (important) "Internet governance: In praise of chaos. Governments' attempts to control the internet should be resisted" "A plaything of powerful nations. Internet governance is under attack; it may have to mend its ways to survive" Blog "A pangolin internet" Record number of participants, on site and remote. Word is that the workshops were of a high standard. Hope everyone enjoyed Nairobi (except the traffic...) Best, Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Oct 3 15:29:47 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:29:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: CS letter to UNGA In-Reply-To: <146A8502-CF0B-475A-915A-70014E4185D5@ciroap.org> References: <45084da9ff280e3e58ece584e3938bc9@xs4all.nl> <1C81086F-BDE2-4055-B982-3FD555C72679@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C597@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <146A8502-CF0B-475A-915A-70014E4185D5@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717549700FC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Just catching up with this. I understand that it is too late to alter what you did, but it seems odd to me that we would not mention that rather obvious mandate the proposed code of conduct would give to authoritarian states to suppress internet-based expression that they viewed as "destabilizing" their government. That, to me, is far more important than any imputed absence of civil society. From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 8:38 AM To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Re: CS letter to UNGA On 27/09/2011, at 3:29 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: Hi here is a very first draft of the letter. Additions,m changeas, enhancements are welcome. And lets start to invite other NGOs / CS Orgs to join. Many thanks Wolfgang. Due to the compressed timescale available to us, Izumi and I have agreed that we won't be holding the usual 48-hour consensus call after the discussion on this draft closes. Instead we will determine whether there is a rough consensus based on the comments (especially objections) received as we fine-tune this draft text over the next 24 hours. In the interim, I will reach out to other civil society networks and other stakeholder groups to ascertain whether they will sign on to the final text. Thanks for your understanding of this deviation from our usual procedures. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Oct 3 15:36:27 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:36:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Instituto Nupef on IBSA Rio recommendations In-Reply-To: <4E82E79F.1030504@cafonso.ca> References: <4E82E79F.1030504@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717549700FD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> A belated thank you for this response to the IBSA document. Good to know that Nupef refuses to be coopted. Is there a web site link to this statement? Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 5:24 AM > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] Instituto Nupef on IBSA Rio recommendations > > Dear people, > > Regarding the recent recommendations (attached as PDF) produced by the > governments of India, Brazil and South Africa in the context of the IBSA > initiative (www.ibsa-trilateral.org) and as a consequence of a meeting > on Internet Governance held by IBSA in Rio de Janeiro on Sept.02, 2011, > Instituto Nupef has the following comments: > > The document is presented as the result of an IBSA Multistakeholder > meeting and all over the document the meeting is presented as the > subject who puts forward the recommendations. We must clarify that there > was no such multistakeholder meeting - Nupef was invited to participate > in the IBSA seminar as a Brazilian NGO which has views and experiences > to share on the issues of Internet Governance. Nupef has never expected > that a document would be produced after the meeting, there was no > deliberation on concrete outcomes and no process that would lead to a > production of a final document endorsed by those who were present. In > our point of view, this subject in the text that presents the proposal - > "the meeting" - doesn't exist; > > Nupef is against the creation of a new body "located within the UN > system" dedicated to undertake the roles described in the IBSA > recommendations; > > Nupef doesn't see how such body could "integrate and oversee the bodies > responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, > including global standards setting;" and why this would be necessary; > > Nupef recognizes that the IBSA recommendations might be an interesting > starting point for a discussion if reformulated and improved, not only > in its content but also in the process of its further development, > including a wider range of civil society voices in an open, > participatory and transparent process; > > Nupef agrees that close collaboration and concrete action is needed in > the field of Internet Governance and strongly suggests that existing > dialogue spaces for civil society, government and private sector - such > as the CGI.br - and existing communications spaces and structures - such > as e-mail lists and foras that have been hosting this kind of > collaborative reflection and action for several years - be the space for > this exchange and deliberation. > > Nairobi, 28-Sept-2011 > Graciela Selaimen > Carlos A. Afonso (c.a.) > Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil > www.nupef.org.br > __________________________________________________________ > __ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Oct 3 15:42:16 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:42:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] My blog post on the GAC and the UDRP review In-Reply-To: <1317402799.4e85f8afab78c@gold.itu.ch> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717549373D7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717549373D8@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1317402799.4e85f8afab78c@gold.itu.ch> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717549700FE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Mr. Karim, Thanks for responding. As Comoros GAC representative, did you get a copy of the draft GAC statement on the UDRP review? Was it circulated to you asking for your approval? > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 1:13 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] My blog post on the GAC and the UDRP review > > Interesting to know ! > > ATTOUMANI MOHAMED Karim, > Comoros representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of > ICANN > Ingénieur Télécoms en Transmission, Réseaux et Commutation > Chef du Département Études et Projets, > Autorité Nationale de Régulation des TIC (ANRTIC) - Union des Comores, > (+269) 334 37 06 (Mobile Moroni) - ID Skype: attoukarim > > Quoting Milton L Mueller : > > > > > Lifting the Veil on how GAC works... > > > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/29/4909356.html > > > > Milton L. Mueller > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet > > Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.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 graciela at nupef.org.br Mon Oct 3 16:31:16 2011 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:31:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] Instituto Nupef on IBSA Rio recommendations In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717549700FD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4E82E79F.1030504@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717549700FD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4E8A1B94.4030208@nupef.org.br> Dear all, Nupef's statement is published in our website - both in English and Portuguese: http://www.nupef.org.br/?q=node/84 best, Graciela Em 10/3/11 4:36 PM, Milton L Mueller escreveu: > A belated thank you for this response to the IBSA document. Good to know that Nupef refuses to be coopted. > Is there a web site link to this statement? > > Milton L. Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > Internet Governance Project > http://blog.internetgovernance.org > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On >> Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso >> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 5:24 AM >> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >> Subject: [governance] Instituto Nupef on IBSA Rio recommendations >> >> Dear people, >> >> Regarding the recent recommendations (attached as PDF) produced by the >> governments of India, Brazil and South Africa in the context of the IBSA >> initiative (www.ibsa-trilateral.org) and as a consequence of a meeting >> on Internet Governance held by IBSA in Rio de Janeiro on Sept.02, 2011, >> Instituto Nupef has the following comments: >> >> The document is presented as the result of an IBSA Multistakeholder >> meeting and all over the document the meeting is presented as the >> subject who puts forward the recommendations. We must clarify that there >> was no such multistakeholder meeting - Nupef was invited to participate >> in the IBSA seminar as a Brazilian NGO which has views and experiences >> to share on the issues of Internet Governance. Nupef has never expected >> that a document would be produced after the meeting, there was no >> deliberation on concrete outcomes and no process that would lead to a >> production of a final document endorsed by those who were present. In >> our point of view, this subject in the text that presents the proposal - >> "the meeting" - doesn't exist; >> >> Nupef is against the creation of a new body "located within the UN >> system" dedicated to undertake the roles described in the IBSA >> recommendations; >> >> Nupef doesn't see how such body could "integrate and oversee the bodies >> responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, >> including global standards setting;" and why this would be necessary; >> >> Nupef recognizes that the IBSA recommendations might be an interesting >> starting point for a discussion if reformulated and improved, not only >> in its content but also in the process of its further development, >> including a wider range of civil society voices in an open, >> participatory and transparent process; >> >> Nupef agrees that close collaboration and concrete action is needed in >> the field of Internet Governance and strongly suggests that existing >> dialogue spaces for civil society, government and private sector - such >> as the CGI.br - and existing communications spaces and structures - such >> as e-mail lists and foras that have been hosting this kind of >> collaborative reflection and action for several years - be the space for >> this exchange and deliberation. >> >> Nairobi, 28-Sept-2011 >> Graciela Selaimen >> Carlos A. Afonso (c.a.) >> Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil >> www.nupef.org.br >> __________________________________________________________ >> __ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 17:02:59 2011 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Alves_Jr=2E?=) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:02:59 -0300 Subject: [governance] Instituto Nupef on IBSA Rio recommendations In-Reply-To: <4E8A1B94.4030208@nupef.org.br> References: <4E82E79F.1030504@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717549700FD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E8A1B94.4030208@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: Olá, senhoras. Estou um tanto impressionado com este documento. O Jeferson esteve presente no evento representando a Anatel, mas também desconhece essas recomendações. Se foi fechado por governo, estejam certas de que a Agência não participou da formulação. Vocês já descobriram como ele foi fechado? Abraços, Sérgio 2011/10/3 Graciela Selaimen > Dear all, > > Nupef's statement is published in our website - both in English and > Portuguese: http://www.nupef.org.br/?q=**node/84 > > best, > Graciela > > Em 10/3/11 4:36 PM, Milton L Mueller escreveu: > > A belated thank you for this response to the IBSA document. Good to know >> that Nupef refuses to be coopted. >> Is there a web site link to this statement? >> >> Milton L. Mueller >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> Internet Governance Project >> http://blog.**internetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.**org] >>> On >>> Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 5:24 AM >>> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >>> Subject: [governance] Instituto Nupef on IBSA Rio recommendations >>> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> Regarding the recent recommendations (attached as PDF) produced by the >>> governments of India, Brazil and South Africa in the context of the IBSA >>> initiative (www.ibsa-trilateral.org) and as a consequence of a meeting >>> on Internet Governance held by IBSA in Rio de Janeiro on Sept.02, 2011, >>> Instituto Nupef has the following comments: >>> >>> The document is presented as the result of an IBSA Multistakeholder >>> meeting and all over the document the meeting is presented as the >>> subject who puts forward the recommendations. We must clarify that there >>> was no such multistakeholder meeting - Nupef was invited to participate >>> in the IBSA seminar as a Brazilian NGO which has views and experiences >>> to share on the issues of Internet Governance. Nupef has never expected >>> that a document would be produced after the meeting, there was no >>> deliberation on concrete outcomes and no process that would lead to a >>> production of a final document endorsed by those who were present. In >>> our point of view, this subject in the text that presents the proposal - >>> "the meeting" - doesn't exist; >>> >>> Nupef is against the creation of a new body "located within the UN >>> system" dedicated to undertake the roles described in the IBSA >>> recommendations; >>> >>> Nupef doesn't see how such body could "integrate and oversee the bodies >>> responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, >>> including global standards setting;" and why this would be necessary; >>> >>> Nupef recognizes that the IBSA recommendations might be an interesting >>> starting point for a discussion if reformulated and improved, not only >>> in its content but also in the process of its further development, >>> including a wider range of civil society voices in an open, >>> participatory and transparent process; >>> >>> Nupef agrees that close collaboration and concrete action is needed in >>> the field of Internet Governance and strongly suggests that existing >>> dialogue spaces for civil society, government and private sector - such >>> as the CGI.br - and existing communications spaces and structures - such >>> as e-mail lists and foras that have been hosting this kind of >>> collaborative reflection and action for several years - be the space for >>> this exchange and deliberation. >>> >>> Nairobi, 28-Sept-2011 >>> Graciela Selaimen >>> Carlos A. Afonso (c.a.) >>> Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil >>> www.nupef.org.br >>> ______________________________**____________________________ >>> __ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>> >> ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >> >> >> ______________________________**______________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Mon Oct 3 17:57:04 2011 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:57:04 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] Instituto Nupef on IBSA Rio recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <4E82E79F.1030504@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717549700FD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E8A1B94.4030208@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: <042e01cc8217$693918b0$3bab4a10$@uol.com.br> É uma excelente pergunta! Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 De: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de Sérgio Alves Jr. Enviada em: segunda-feira, 3 de outubro de 2011 18:03 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Graciela Selaimen; Marilia Maciel Assunto: Re: [governance] Instituto Nupef on IBSA Rio recommendations Olá, senhoras. Estou um tanto impressionado com este documento. O Jeferson esteve presente no evento representando a Anatel, mas também desconhece essas recomendações. Se foi fechado por governo, estejam certas de que a Agência não participou da formulação. Vocês já descobriram como ele foi fechado? Abraços, Sérgio 2011/10/3 Graciela Selaimen Dear all, Nupef's statement is published in our website - both in English and Portuguese: http://www.nupef.org.br/?q=node/84 best, Graciela Em 10/3/11 4:36 PM, Milton L Mueller escreveu: A belated thank you for this response to the IBSA document. Good to know that Nupef refuses to be coopted. Is there a web site link to this statement? Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 5:24 AM To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: [governance] Instituto Nupef on IBSA Rio recommendations Dear people, Regarding the recent recommendations (attached as PDF) produced by the governments of India, Brazil and South Africa in the context of the IBSA initiative (www.ibsa-trilateral.org) and as a consequence of a meeting on Internet Governance held by IBSA in Rio de Janeiro on Sept.02, 2011, Instituto Nupef has the following comments: The document is presented as the result of an IBSA Multistakeholder meeting and all over the document the meeting is presented as the subject who puts forward the recommendations. We must clarify that there was no such multistakeholder meeting - Nupef was invited to participate in the IBSA seminar as a Brazilian NGO which has views and experiences to share on the issues of Internet Governance. Nupef has never expected that a document would be produced after the meeting, there was no deliberation on concrete outcomes and no process that would lead to a production of a final document endorsed by those who were present. In our point of view, this subject in the text that presents the proposal - "the meeting" - doesn't exist; Nupef is against the creation of a new body "located within the UN system" dedicated to undertake the roles described in the IBSA recommendations; Nupef doesn't see how such body could "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting;" and why this would be necessary; Nupef recognizes that the IBSA recommendations might be an interesting starting point for a discussion if reformulated and improved, not only in its content but also in the process of its further development, including a wider range of civil society voices in an open, participatory and transparent process; Nupef agrees that close collaboration and concrete action is needed in the field of Internet Governance and strongly suggests that existing dialogue spaces for civil society, government and private sector - such as the CGI.br - and existing communications spaces and structures - such as e-mail lists and foras that have been hosting this kind of collaborative reflection and action for several years - be the space for this exchange and deliberation. Nairobi, 28-Sept-2011 Graciela Selaimen Carlos A. Afonso (c.a.) Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil www.nupef.org.br __________________________________________________________ __ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2817 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1020 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Oct 3 23:50:49 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 11:50:49 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: CS letter to UNGA In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717549700FC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <45084da9ff280e3e58ece584e3938bc9@xs4all.nl> <1C81086F-BDE2-4055-B982-3FD555C72679@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C597@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <146A8502-CF0B-475A-915A-70014E4185D5@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717549700FC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4E8A8299.9000408@ciroap.org> On 04/10/11 03:29, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Just catching up with this. I understand that it is too late to alter > what you did, but it seems odd to me that we would not mention that > rather obvious mandate the proposed code of conduct would give to > authoritarian states to suppress internet-based expression that they > viewed as "destabilizing" their government. That, to me, is far more > important than any imputed absence of civil society. > The final text does actually also say that. Have a look at http://www.igcaucus.org/infosecurity-code. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Tue Oct 4 05:18:21 2011 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:18:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] The Economist at the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <4E8941D9.6060100@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <1317719901.42826.YahooMailNeo@web25903.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Thank you Adam, The articles are interesting. I am curious to know what will happen in the IG area in near future. Regards   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président www.rtcb.bi Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général www.bytc.bi Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Adam Peake À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Envoyé le : Lundi 3 Octobre 2011 21h04 Objet : [governance] The Economist at the IGF Economist coverage of the IGF: Leader article (important) "Internet governance: In praise of chaos. Governments' attempts to control the internet should be resisted" "A plaything of powerful nations. Internet governance is under attack; it may have to mend its ways to survive" Blog "A pangolin internet" Record number of participants, on site and remote.  Word is that the workshops were of a high standard. Hope everyone enjoyed Nairobi (except the traffic...) Best, Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From raquelgatto at uol.com.br Tue Oct 4 14:41:56 2011 From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:41:56 -0300 Subject: [governance] Nominees for next co-coordinator position In-Reply-To: References: <290EA09D-040C-4EF5-9FE9-444E563217DB@ciroap.org> <487DE54D-A98F-49EB-8B5F-94B26BC6C75B@acm.org> <4E8871DB.4080602@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4e8b5374843d4_22085b3f83045c@a2-weasel15.tmail> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 18:09:06 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:09:06 -0300 Subject: [governance] Instituto Nupef on IBSA Rio recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <4E82E79F.1030504@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717549700FD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E8A1B94.4030208@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: Caros Sérgio e Vanda, Esse documento foi formulado pelos representantes de governo dos três países, em uma reuniãoque fizeram após o seminário. Segundo o Rômulo nos explicou, não é um documento formal do IBAS. É uma exposição da percepção dos governos sobre alternativas institucionais, e, segundo Brasil e India afirmaram no IGF, o conteúdo do documento está aberto a críticas e sugestões. Um abraço, Marília 2011/10/3 Sérgio Alves Jr. > Olá, senhoras. Estou um tanto impressionado com este documento. > > O Jeferson esteve presente no evento representando a Anatel, mas também > desconhece essas recomendações. Se foi fechado por governo, estejam certas > de que a Agência não participou da formulação. > > Vocês já descobriram como ele foi fechado? > > Abraços, > Sérgio > > > 2011/10/3 Graciela Selaimen > >> Dear all, >> >> Nupef's statement is published in our website - both in English and >> Portuguese: http://www.nupef.org.br/?q=**node/84 >> >> best, >> Graciela >> >> Em 10/3/11 4:36 PM, Milton L Mueller escreveu: >> >> A belated thank you for this response to the IBSA document. Good to know >>> that Nupef refuses to be coopted. >>> Is there a web site link to this statement? >>> >>> Milton L. Mueller >>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >>> Internet Governance Project >>> http://blog.**internetgovernance.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.**org] >>>> On >>>> Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso >>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 5:24 AM >>>> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >>>> Subject: [governance] Instituto Nupef on IBSA Rio recommendations >>>> >>>> Dear people, >>>> >>>> Regarding the recent recommendations (attached as PDF) produced by the >>>> governments of India, Brazil and South Africa in the context of the IBSA >>>> initiative (www.ibsa-trilateral.org) and as a consequence of a meeting >>>> on Internet Governance held by IBSA in Rio de Janeiro on Sept.02, 2011, >>>> Instituto Nupef has the following comments: >>>> >>>> The document is presented as the result of an IBSA Multistakeholder >>>> meeting and all over the document the meeting is presented as the >>>> subject who puts forward the recommendations. We must clarify that there >>>> was no such multistakeholder meeting - Nupef was invited to participate >>>> in the IBSA seminar as a Brazilian NGO which has views and experiences >>>> to share on the issues of Internet Governance. Nupef has never expected >>>> that a document would be produced after the meeting, there was no >>>> deliberation on concrete outcomes and no process that would lead to a >>>> production of a final document endorsed by those who were present. In >>>> our point of view, this subject in the text that presents the proposal - >>>> "the meeting" - doesn't exist; >>>> >>>> Nupef is against the creation of a new body "located within the UN >>>> system" dedicated to undertake the roles described in the IBSA >>>> recommendations; >>>> >>>> Nupef doesn't see how such body could "integrate and oversee the bodies >>>> responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, >>>> including global standards setting;" and why this would be necessary; >>>> >>>> Nupef recognizes that the IBSA recommendations might be an interesting >>>> starting point for a discussion if reformulated and improved, not only >>>> in its content but also in the process of its further development, >>>> including a wider range of civil society voices in an open, >>>> participatory and transparent process; >>>> >>>> Nupef agrees that close collaboration and concrete action is needed in >>>> the field of Internet Governance and strongly suggests that existing >>>> dialogue spaces for civil society, government and private sector - such >>>> as the CGI.br - and existing communications spaces and structures - such >>>> as e-mail lists and foras that have been hosting this kind of >>>> collaborative reflection and action for several years - be the space for >>>> this exchange and deliberation. >>>> >>>> Nairobi, 28-Sept-2011 >>>> Graciela Selaimen >>>> Carlos A. Afonso (c.a.) >>>> Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil >>>> www.nupef.org.br >>>> ______________________________**____________________________ >>>> __ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>>> >>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >> >> > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Oct 4 22:12:21 2011 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 04:12:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] CAC - combating against comptuter assisted crime In-Reply-To: <4e8b5374843d4_22085b3f83045c@a2-weasel15.tmail> References: <290EA09D-040C-4EF5-9FE9-444E563217DB@ciroap.org> <487DE54D-A98F-49EB-8B5F-94B26BC6C75B@acm.org> <4E8871DB.4080602@itforchange.net> <4e8b5374843d4_22085b3f83045c@a2-weasel15.tmail> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20111005024038.06a6d3c0@jefsey.com> Computers and the Internet permit computer assisted crimes, felonies, thefts, frauds, etc. which are more difficult to spot or to oppose because a computer was involved. From spam to hidden bank charges (by the computer) or taxes or additional costs, or crazy automated relational processes, etc. http://legal.practitioner.com/computer-crime/computercrime_2_3_1.htm Civil society should consider starting a worldwide campaign for national laws to consider computer assistance as an aggravating circumstance when committing an offence. This simply makes sense because when someone is computer assisted it is as if they had an accomplice and also means at least some form of premeditation and some form of remote physical impunity. If Majors were able to protect and create new Internet rights, why can't the people protect and create new Computer/Internet related rights in that same, very simple manner. Considering computer assistance as a possibly aggravating circumstance would most probably help better qualifying facts and educate people in how to better defend themselves in our computer age. A generalized computer assisted crime is certainly the way any organization of some size, and that deals with people diversity, automates its relations with people as if they were computers (it is simpler, cheaper, and lawyerless) and carries it to its sole benefit. This is why I am sure every one of us has met a circumstance when he/she has accepted to pay something undue because the demand came from a computer assisted organization, and disputing it would have been more of a pain than paying it. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Wed Oct 5 06:05:58 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:05:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Election Statement Message-ID: <1317809158975673000@crossriverstate.gov.ng> Fellows and friends, Understanding the complexmultidisciplinary nature and regime involving many issues, actors, mechanisms,procedures and instruments; I present myself for service in the next electionfor the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)- Coordinator. “Do we have to Universalize InternetGovernance development at the expense of the richness of diversity?” ‘How can we promote universalunderstanding, taking into account what Internet Governance development meansto each community without promoting the hegemony of our own perception ofInternet Governance development?’ Free Internet will lead tomore transparency and political accountability which I greatly preserve,keeping in mind the borderless nature of the Internet. My vision is to utilizeand harmonise resources, human and material resources for the continuous developmentof the Internet for the benefit of the generality of man and our environment,to the glory of the Almighty. To the Internet GovernanceCaucus, I pledge my love and toil and with abiding faith in Almighty Creator,aspire to develop a well-articulated, determined, coordinated and disciplinedprogram to succeed. The like of which has not to date been obtained in IGC. With a focus on Top Downservices from our team to help up-lift the poor that act in Bottom Up activities;with the involvement of a variety of stakeholders who differ in many aspects,including international legal capacity with interest in Internet Governanceissues, and available expertise to: * · Promote the growth of mutual trust andrespect for all * · Reach out with governments andinter-governmental agencies through the enhancement of Civil Society Voice andnon-state actors in the Internet Governance Forum process. * · To be part of a team that will lay out anapproach that unifies our engagement in ushering a new era of InternationalCooperation. * · Together, we can work to build a future forthe IGC that is open, interoperable, secure and reliable. * · Creating enabling environment for increasecollaborations among the multi-stakeholders to contribute to the discussion andimplementation of outcomes with governments which will truly promote thevertical and horizontal management of the Internet. The Internet continues toexpand at a rapid rate, not only in terms of the number of users but also interms of the services that it offers. And I believe we all want the IGCtransformation with vast potentials resulting in good relationship withBusiness and Technical communities. To achieve the above, Ipropose to put in place the following: a. 1. Strategyand contact Committee b. 2. EconomicCommittee c. 3. FinanceCommittee With the following termsof reference: * · Strategy and Contact Committee o Identify specific goals and objectives o Develop programmes for achieving goals o Establish contacts and links withgovernments, private sector, Civil Societies, non-state actors andintergovernmental agencies o Develop strategies for politicalempowerment o Lobbying o Propaganda o Press relations o Protocol * · Economic Committee o Develop economic blueprint for the InternetGovernance Caucus o Analyse investment and research opportunities o Monitor implementation of projects * · Finance Committee o Identify ways of enhancing financialpositions of members o Prepare revenue projections o Identify and harness ways and means ofgenerating funds o Identify specific source of funding forspecific projects o Treasury Finally, with variablegeometric approach, we will bridge the principal challenge for many governmentsto develop a strategy to gather and effectively coordinate support fromnon-state actors, such as universities, private companies, and non-governmentalorganizations that have the necessary expertise to deal with InternetGovernance Issues. Yourvotes will make a great difference. Thank you. SonigituEkpe Aji (aka)Sea -- Sonigitu Ekpe Project Support Officer[Agriculturist] Cross River Farm Credit Scheme Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources 3 Barracks Road P.M.B. 1119 Calabar - Cross River State, Nigeria. Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" __________________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this communication is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in reliance of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kindly destroy this message and notify the sender by replying the email in such instances. We do not accept responsibility for any changes made to this message after it was originally sent and any views, opinions, conclusions or other information in this message which do not relate to the business of this firm or are not authorized by us.The Cross River State Government is not liable neither for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor any delay in its receipt. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 10:48:27 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 07:48:27 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion Message-ID: I've been asked by the organizers of this to see if the IGC is willing to sign on to this... The closing date would be late Thursday/early Friday Europe time. I don't believe that they are on this list so comments might be copied both to Irene and to the list. I'm not sure if there is a formal process for approval/non-approval but perhaps the co-coordinators could intervene here. Tks, M -----Original Message----- From: Irene Prevedello [mailto:irene.prevedello at agoradigitale.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 2:09 AM To: gurstein at gmail.com Cc: Luca Nicotra Subject: Final version open letter e-G20 Dear Mike, I attach the final version of the open letter addressed to the organizers of the e-G20! We would like to turn it into public by friday. Do you confirm Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's interest in being involved in this initiative and put the signature on the letter? Best, Irene Team Agorà Digitale -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Openletter.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 83479 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 10:48:27 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 07:48:27 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [P2P-F] Wikipedia threatens to self-suspend in Italy due to proposed new law Message-ID: <0F870664C1694557A7893171F56251AD@acer6e40e97492> -----Original Message----- From: p2p-foundation-bounces at lists.ourproject.org [mailto:p2p-foundation-bounces at lists.ourproject.org] On Behalf Of Bertram Maria niessen Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 2:05 AM To: P2P Foundation mailing list Subject: [P2P-F] Wikipedia self-suspending Wikipedia self-suspending in Italy due to Berlusconi Government's Law Proposal against free speech on the Web http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011/en _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 5 11:10:40 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 23:10:40 +0800 Subject: [governance] Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <642B917C-5716-482B-A842-B04B620EB0E8@ciroap.org> In principle I think we should lend support, but I'm not sure about the wording of the letter. I understand that e-G20 is not an official name of the meeting, it is just a meeting of the G20 summit at which Internet will be discussed. If the letter could be revised to reflect the position better, then we could probably do a rapid consensus call on this list, and if that succeeded then to include our name. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2212 bytes Desc: not available URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Oct 5 11:36:36 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 16:36:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion In-Reply-To: <642B917C-5716-482B-A842-B04B620EB0E8@ciroap.org> References: <642B917C-5716-482B-A842-B04B620EB0E8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <7KZXQPSEmHjOFAda@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <642B917C-5716-482B-A842-B04B620EB0E8 at ciroap.org>, at 23:10:40 on Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >  I understand that e-G20 is not an official name of the meeting, it is >just a meeting of the G20 summit at which Internet will be discussed. The G20 summit isn't until November 3-4, so it's presumably one of a series of pre-meetings, and not a particularly well advertised one. Does anyone have url for it? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Oct 5 11:45:52 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:45:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Moving the mailing list, revisited In-Reply-To: <4E8941D9.6060100@ciroap.org> References: <4E8941D9.6060100@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5A0EC57B-0F67-41B4-AA18-B31C236F42BB@acm.org> On 3 Oct 2011, at 01:02, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Alternatively we can wait and see whether the IGC decides to raise some funding, in which case it could pay for its own hosting and the website and mailing list could live together. This is the best longer term option, because is allows us to be self-reliant for as long as the funding is there. as the 'patron' for the registration for the igcaucus.org name, i am in favor of this option. i would be willing to contribute and to help in the system admin of such a site. avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Oct 5 12:39:49 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 01:39:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] FW: Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion In-Reply-To: <642B917C-5716-482B-A842-B04B620EB0E8@ciroap.org> References: <642B917C-5716-482B-A842-B04B620EB0E8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Jeremy and all, given the limited info and also time, could we start a consensus call with some conditional element? I mean we ask general support for joining this open letter within IGC as consensus call and also ask the organizer to modify the wording that reflects the latest and accurate info? and maybe the details can be left to us, co-coordinators if IGC also agrees. Izumi 2011年10月6日木曜日 Jeremy Malcolm jeremy at ciroap.org: > In principle I think we should lend support, but I'm not sure about the wording of the letter. I understand that e-G20 is not an official name of the meeting, it is just a meeting of the G20 summit at which Internet will be discussed. If the letter could be revised to reflect the position better, then we could probably do a rapid consensus call on this list, and if that succeeded then to include our name. > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice < http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't print this email unless necessary. > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 13:17:22 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 10:17:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9CF96D9DF6FE4B908692003525040E93@acer6e40e97492> That's sounds like a reasonable approach Izumi/Jeremy M -----Original Message----- From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 9:40 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Cc: michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion Jeremy and all, given the limited info and also time, could we start a consensus call with some conditional element? I mean we ask general support for joining this open letter within IGC as consensus call and also ask the organizer to modify the wording that reflects the latest and accurate info? and maybe the details can be left to us, co-coordinators if IGC also agrees. Izumi 2011年10月6日木曜日 Jeremy Malcolm jeremy at ciroap.org: > In principle I think we should lend support, but I'm not sure about the wording of the letter. I understand that e-G20 is not an official name of the meeting, it is just a meeting of the G20 summit at which Internet will be discussed. If the letter could be revised to reflect the position better, then we could probably do a rapid consensus call on this list, and if that succeeded then to include our name. > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 11:19:28 2011 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 17:19:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [P2P-F] Wikipedia threatens to self-suspend in Italy due to proposed new law In-Reply-To: <0F870664C1694557A7893171F56251AD@acer6e40e97492> References: <0F870664C1694557A7893171F56251AD@acer6e40e97492> Message-ID: Hi all That is very horrible to hear indeed. Can Italy now claim to be a democracy? Aaron On 10/5/11, michael gurstein wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: p2p-foundation-bounces at lists.ourproject.org > [mailto:p2p-foundation-bounces at lists.ourproject.org] On Behalf Of Bertram > Maria niessen > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 2:05 AM > To: P2P Foundation mailing list > Subject: [P2P-F] Wikipedia self-suspending > > Wikipedia self-suspending in Italy due to Berlusconi Government's Law > Proposal against free speech on the Web > http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011/en > _______________________________________________ > P2P Foundation - Mailing list > http://www.p2pfoundation.net > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant to Tha President ASAFE Telephone:237 33 01 30 13 P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 15:57:25 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 16:57:25 -0300 Subject: [governance] Techdirt: Brazil drafts an anti-ACTA civil rights framework Message-ID: Brazil Drafts An 'Anti-ACTA': A Civil Rights-Based Framework For The Internetfrom the *who's-leader-of-the-*free*-world-now?* dept One of the striking features of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is that it is mainly being signed by Western/“developed” countries – with a few token players from other parts of the world to provide a fig-leaf of nominal inclusiveness. That's no accident: ACTA is the last-gasp attempt of the US and the EU to preserve their intellectual monopolies – copyright and patents, particularly drug patents – in a world where both are increasingly questioned. Much of the challenge to the old order is coming from the BRICS group of emerging countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – none of which has been involved in ACTA. Of those, the one in the vanguard of adopting innovative approaches to making knowledge widely accessible in the Internet age is Brazil. For example, the federal government has actively supported open source software by creating a Public Software Portal. The country has also been at the forefront of open content use : just this week, the city of São Paulo specified that all educational materials produced for it must be released under the Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA license . It's true that there have also been some mixed signals recently, notably the re-surfacing of the punitive “cybercrime bill”, which Techdirt reported on a couple of months ago. But here's some positive news coming out of the country, in the shape of a draft of a bill for a civil rights-based framework for the Internet : ** * The draft bill proposition for a Civil Right’s Based Framework for Internet in Brazil has just reached Congress. The English translation of this version is available here . * ** * It is the result of an initiative from the Brazilian Ministry of Justice, in partnership with the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), to develop a collaborative online/offline consultation process in which all the actors from Brazilian society could identify together the rights and responsibilities that should guide the use of the Internet in Brazil. The process, which resulted in a Bill of Law, is an example of the importance and the great potential of multistakeholder involvement on policy-making. * ** * NGOs, universities, internet service providers (collectively though associations, as well as individually), business companies, law firms, law enforcement agencies, individuals, Brazilian Embassies from all over the world, and many other participants have joined the online public hearing. The participation of several stakeholder groups has promoted the diversity of opinions and the availability of high quality information and expert advise, which have helped the government to draft a balanced bill. The openness and transparency of the process, entirely conducted online, in the public eye, has improved the legitimacy of the bill. Marco Civil was introduced in Congress with the political weight and the legitimacy that the Bill would be expected to have after a complex multistakeholder discussion. * Among its fundamental principles: ** * I – safeguarding freedom of speech, communication, and manifestation of thought, in the terms of the Constitution; * ** * II – the protection of privacy; * ** * III – the protection of personal data, in accordance to the law; * ** * IV – the preservation and safeguarding of net neutrality, in compliance with further regulation; * And this is *real* net neutrality, not the compromised US kind : ** * Article 9. The party responsible for the transmission, switching or routing of data has the obligation of granting equal treatment to every data package, with no distinction by content, origin and destination, service, terminal or application; any traffic discrimination or degradation that does not arise out of the technical requirements necessary to the adequate provision of services is prohibited, in accordance to further regulation. * It also comes out strongly in favor of guaranteeing access to the Internet, respect for personal privacy online, and against any kind of “three strikes” laws cutting off users for alleged copyright infringement: ** * Article 7. Access to the Internet is essential for the exercise of citizenship, and the following rights are secured to its users: * ** * I – the non-violation and secrecy of communications on the Internet, except under judicial order, in the hypotheses and form established by law, for criminal investigations or the gathering of evidence for criminal procedures; * ** * II – the non suspension of Internet connections, except for debts directly related to their use; * It has plenty to say on the vexed issue of keeping users' access logs, including: ** * Article 10. The storage and disclosure of the connection logs and Internet application access logs regulated by this law must preserve intimacy, private life, the reputation and image of the parties directly or indirectly involved. * ** * §1 The Internet service provider responsible for the storage of logs will only be constrained to disclose the information that allows the identification of the user under a judicial order * Nor is ISP liability overlooked: ** * Article 14. Internet connection providers shall not be responsible for damage arising from content generated by third parties. * ** * Article 15. Except otherwise established by law, Internet application providers can only be responsible for the damages caused by content generated by third parties if, after receiving a specific judicial order, they do not take action to, in the context of their services and under the established time frame, make unavailable the infringing content. * And the crucial issue of judicial requests for logs is also spelled out in detail: ** * Article 17. Interested parties may, for the purpose of gathering evidence in civil and criminal proceedings, of either accidental or autonomous nature, request a judge to order the party responsible for storing Internet service access logs, or connection logs, to disclose these logs. * ** * Sole Paragraph. Without prejudice of other legal requirements, the application shall contain, under penalty of not being admissible: * ** * I – solid evidence of the occurrence of an illegal act; * ** * II – a motivated justification for the utility of accessing the requested logs, for the purposes of investigation or the gathering of evidence; * ** * III - the period that the logs refer to. * ** * Article 18. It is the obligation of judges to take the measures necessary to guarantee the secrecy of the information received, and the preservation of the intimacy, private life, honor and image of Internet users. Judges are capable, for that purpose, to constitute the information as secret, including with respect to requests for the storage of logs. * All-in-all, it's a remarkable document, forming in effect an "anti-ACTA" that guarantees many of the protections for Internet users that ACTA seeks to eradicate, and forbids repressive measures that ACTA aims to introduce. However, two big questions hang over the draft. First, whether it will be passed by the Brazilian Congress in its present form (or at all), and, second, how it can be squared with the harsh penalties proposed in the “cybercrime” bill mentioned above if that too comes into force. But whatever happens, Brazil has already shown leadership by drafting a bill that dares to question and oppose the copyright maximalist orthodoxies underlying ACTA – something signally lacking in other countries. Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+ -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 18:25:48 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:25:48 +1200 Subject: [governance] Techdirt: Brazil drafts an anti-ACTA civil rights framework In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Marilia. This is very interesting and was also the subject of much debate and discussions on the Asia Pacific Regional IGF. The transcripts and presentation are available via http://2011.rigf.asia/program.php see 16th June, 2011 from 1400 and this was how the Plenary was described: *Intellectual Property: ACTA **and Other Controversies** * The Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement would be a treaty to put in place new and higher international standards on intellectual property enforcement. Apart from its obvious TRIPS-Plus nature and forceful use of ISPs as private police, ACTA reveals a couple of critically important aspects that deserve careful scrutiny from the perspective of Internet Governance. ACTA’s plurilateral and closed negotiation process directly goes against the multi-stakeholder and open and transparent participation principles developed for Internet Governance. ACTA’s narrow focus on intellectual property rights ignores human rights concerns, especially free speech and access to the Internet, that are essential in the information society. ACTA demonstrate the temptation to shift from the existing multilateral WIPO-WTO regime to a more restricted and opaque system to enforce the private exclusive rights on the global information network. In addition, other domestic (such as US Bill “Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)”) or private (such as ICANN’s trademark measures in new gTLD process) enforcement measures for intellectual property will exert significant global impact. The session intends to have a vivid discussion on all these interesting issues in the most populous and economic-booming region of the world. - Mary Wong (University of New Hampshire) - Goh Seow Hiong (CISCO) - Jordan Carter (InternetNZ) - Siew Kum Hong (Yahoo! Southeast Asia) - Lim Yee Fen (NTU) - William J. Drake (IPMZ University of Zurich) On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Brazil Drafts An 'Anti-ACTA': A Civil Rights-Based Framework For The > Internet from the *who's-leader-of-the-*free*-world-now?* dept > > One of the striking features of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is > that it is mainly being signed by Western/“developed” countries – with a > few token players from other parts of the world to provide a fig-leaf of > nominal inclusiveness. > That's no accident: ACTA is the last-gasp attempt of the US and the EU to > preserve their intellectual monopolies – copyright and patents, particularly > drug patents – in a world where both are increasingly questioned. > > Much of the challenge to the old order is coming from the BRICS group of > emerging countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – none of > which has been involved in ACTA. Of those, the one in the vanguard of > adopting innovative approaches to making knowledge widely accessible in the > Internet age is Brazil. > > For example, the federal government has actively supported open source > software by > creating a Public Software Portal. The country has also been at the > forefront of open content use : just > this week, the city of São Paulo specified that all educational materials > produced for it must be released under the Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA > license > . > > It's true that there have also been some mixed signals recently, notably the > re-surfacing of the punitive “cybercrime bill”, > which Techdirt reported on a couple of months ago. But here's some positive > news coming out of the country, in the shape of a draft of a bill for a > civil rights-based framework for the Internet > : > > ** > * > > The draft bill proposition for a Civil Right’s Based Framework for Internet > in Brazil has just reached Congress. The English translation of this version > is available here > . > > * > > ** > * > > It is the result of an initiative from the Brazilian Ministry of Justice, > in partnership with the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio > Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), to develop a collaborative online/offline > consultation process in which all the actors from Brazilian society could > identify together the rights and responsibilities that should guide the use > of the Internet in Brazil. The process, which resulted in a Bill of Law, is > an example of the importance and the great potential of multistakeholder > involvement on policy-making. > > * > > ** > * > > NGOs, universities, internet service providers (collectively though > associations, as well as individually), business companies, law firms, law > enforcement agencies, individuals, Brazilian Embassies from all over the > world, and many other participants have joined the online public hearing. > The participation of several stakeholder groups has promoted the diversity > of opinions and the availability of high quality information and expert > advise, which have helped the government to draft a balanced bill. The > openness and transparency of the process, entirely conducted online, in the > public eye, has improved the legitimacy of the bill. Marco Civil was > introduced in Congress with the political weight and the legitimacy that the > Bill would be expected to have after a complex multistakeholder discussion. > > * > > Among its fundamental principles: > > ** > * > > I – safeguarding freedom of speech, communication, and manifestation of > thought, in the terms of the Constitution; > > * > > ** > * > > II – the protection of privacy; > > * > > ** > * > > III – the protection of personal data, in accordance to the law; > > * > > ** > * > > IV – the preservation and safeguarding of net neutrality, in compliance > with further regulation; > > * > > And this is *real* net neutrality, not the compromised US kind > : > > ** > * > > Article 9. The party responsible for the transmission, switching or routing > of data has the obligation of granting equal treatment to every data > package, with no distinction by content, origin and destination, service, > terminal or application; any traffic discrimination or degradation that does > not arise out of the technical requirements necessary to the adequate > provision of services is prohibited, in accordance to further regulation. > > * > > It also comes out strongly in favor of guaranteeing access to the Internet, > respect for personal privacy online, and against any kind of “three strikes” > laws cutting off users for alleged copyright infringement: > > ** > * > > Article 7. Access to the Internet is essential for the exercise of > citizenship, and the following rights are secured to its users: > > * > > ** > * > > I – the non-violation and secrecy of communications on the Internet, except > under judicial order, in the hypotheses and form established by law, for > criminal investigations or the gathering of evidence for criminal > procedures; > > * > > ** > * > > II – the non suspension of Internet connections, except for debts directly > related to their use; > > * > > It has plenty to say on the vexed issue of keeping users' access logs, > including: > > ** > * > > Article 10. The storage and disclosure of the connection logs and Internet > application access logs regulated by this law must preserve intimacy, > private life, the reputation and image of the parties directly or indirectly > involved. > > * > > ** > * > > §1 The Internet service provider responsible for the storage of logs will > only be constrained to disclose the information that allows the > identification of the user under a judicial order > > * > > Nor is ISP liability overlooked: > > ** > * > > Article 14. Internet connection providers shall not be responsible for > damage arising from content generated by third parties. > > * > > ** > * > > Article 15. Except otherwise established by law, Internet application > providers can only be responsible for the damages caused by content > generated by third parties if, after receiving a specific judicial order, > they do not take action to, in the context of their services and under the > established time frame, make unavailable the infringing content. > > * > > And the crucial issue of judicial requests for logs is also spelled out in > detail: > > ** > * > > Article 17. Interested parties may, for the purpose of gathering evidence > in civil and criminal proceedings, of either accidental or autonomous > nature, request a judge to order the party responsible for storing Internet > service access logs, or connection logs, to disclose these logs. > > * > > ** > * > > Sole Paragraph. Without prejudice of other legal requirements, the > application shall contain, under penalty of not being admissible: > > * > > ** > * > > I – solid evidence of the occurrence of an illegal act; > > * > > ** > * > > II – a motivated justification for the utility of accessing the requested > logs, for the purposes of investigation or the gathering of evidence; > > * > > ** > * > > III - the period that the logs refer to. > > * > > ** > * > > Article 18. It is the obligation of judges to take the measures necessary > to guarantee the secrecy of the information received, and the preservation > of the intimacy, private life, honor and image of Internet users. Judges are > capable, for that purpose, to constitute the information as secret, > including with respect to requests for the storage of logs. > > * > > All-in-all, it's a remarkable document, forming in effect an "anti-ACTA" > that guarantees many of the protections for Internet users that ACTA seeks > to eradicate, and forbids repressive measures that ACTA aims to introduce. > > However, two big questions hang over the draft. First, whether it will be > passed by the Brazilian Congress in its present form (or at all), and, > second, how it can be squared with the harsh penalties proposed in the > “cybercrime” bill mentioned above if that too comes into force. But whatever > happens, Brazil has already shown leadership by drafting a bill that dares > to question and oppose the copyright maximalist orthodoxies underlying ACTA > – something signally lacking in other countries. > > Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or > identi.ca , and on Google+ > > -- > 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 > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Oct 5 21:02:11 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 09:02:11 +0800 Subject: [governance] Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion In-Reply-To: References: <642B917C-5716-482B-A842-B04B620EB0E8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 06/10/2011, at 12:39 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > given the limited info and also time, could we start a consensus call with some conditional > element? > I mean we ask general support for joining this open letter within IGC as > consensus call and also ask the organizer to modify the wording that reflects the > latest and accurate info? > > and maybe the details can be left to us, co-coordinators if IGC also agrees. That's a good plan; members please express your views on whether we should subscribe to this open letter, subject to minor editing which we will explore in the meantime. Izumi and I will assess the IGC's position by COB tomorrow. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2212 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 23:12:24 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 06:12:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion In-Reply-To: References: <642B917C-5716-482B-A842-B04B620EB0E8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: ok, by me. Kind of rude to edit someone else's letter tho. -- 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 Oct 6 07:02:22 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 08:02:22 -0300 Subject: [governance] Next CSTD WG meeting scheduled Message-ID: The next meeting of the CSTD WG for IGF improvement has been scheduled for 31 Oct until 02 Nov, in Geneva. Apparently, it will be open only for participants of the WG, but as the chair has changed, I think it could be useful to write to him and ask about the possibility of allowing observers in the room. So far only the last two reports have been made available in the website, but Peter Major said he is going to present an input for discussion. http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Meeting.asp?intItemID=2068&lang=1&m=22711&year=2011&month=10 Best, Marília -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 08:48:40 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 17:48:40 +0500 Subject: [governance] Next CSTD WG meeting scheduled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000301cc8426$47d496c0$d77dc440$@yahoo.com> Thanks Marilia, for information sharing in time. I would also support your recommended proposal to write the chair for allow some one as observer in the meeting. Thanks Imran Ahmad Shah From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 04:02 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Next CSTD WG meeting scheduled The next meeting of the CSTD WG for IGF improvement has been scheduled for 31 Oct until 02 Nov, in Geneva. Apparently, it will be open only for participants of the WG, but as the chair has changed, I think it could be useful to write to him and ask about the possibility of allowing observers in the room. So far only the last two reports have been made available in the website, but Peter Major said he is going to present an input for discussion. http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Meeting.asp?intItemID=2068 &lang=1&m=22711&year=2011&month=10 Best, Marília -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 6 06:57:47 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:57:47 +1200 Subject: [governance] Acknowledgement and Expression of Gratitude Message-ID: Dear All, I would like to publicly thank the Kenyans for hosting the IGF this year, it was certainly memorable. It was great to experience the Kenyan hospitality and also thank you to all who helped to make it an interesting Forum. I will never forget seeing the monkeys play in the trees next to the tent on Day 1 in the afternoon as if to say, "Welcome to Kenya!" nor watching with amusement as birds (hawks or a breed of eagles ???) swoop to take people's food off their plates at lunch time on Day 2. It was great to meet old friends and make new ones. Thank you also to Grace for making our time at the airport immigration a seamless one. Asante sana Kenya! -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 6 11:27:25 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:57:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion In-Reply-To: References: <642B917C-5716-482B-A842-B04B620EB0E8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4E8DC8DD.3050507@itforchange.net> I am not happy with the IGC just calling for civil society inclusion. It is not enough if 20 largest governments along with largely their industry take important Internet related decisions, even if they include respective civil societies (or even the broader global civil society) . Internet is global, and its major decisions should be taken by a globally representative forum. For this reason, whenever we write such letters for including civil society in select country confabulations, we should also ask for all countries to be included. For this purpose appropriate institutional forms must be evolved. I have no basic objection to some country meeting on select issues and discussing things, However, this kind of thing happening in the context of a deep global democratic deficit in IG area, and to the extent such meeting perpetuate this democratic deficit, is what is the problem. We must have a clear view on this 'problem'. Otherwise I find the letter quite good. Can we inquire with the drafters of the letter if we can add a sentence on non inclusion of all countries in such 'global' IG discussions as we call for inclusion of the civil society. parminder On Thursday 06 October 2011 06:32 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 06/10/2011, at 12:39 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> given the limited info and also time, could we start a consensus call >> with some conditional >> element? >> I mean we ask general support for joining this open letter within IGC as >> consensus call and also ask the organizer to modify the wording that >> reflects the >> latest and accurate info? >> >> and maybe the details can be left to us, co-coordinators if IGC also >> agrees. > > That's a good plan; members please express your views on whether we > should subscribe to this open letter, subject to minor editing which > we will explore in the meantime. Izumi and I will assess the IGC's > position by COB tomorrow. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer > groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only > independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over > 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful > international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > _www.consumersinternational.org _ > _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani at isd-rc.org Thu Oct 6 02:34:30 2011 From: kabani at isd-rc.org (Asif Kabani) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:34:30 +0500 Subject: [governance] Election Statement In-Reply-To: <1317809158975673000@crossriverstate.gov.ng> References: <1317809158975673000@crossriverstate.gov.ng> Message-ID: Dear Sonigitu Thank you for your message, Good to hear from you. Regards On 5 October 2011 15:05, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > Fellows and friends,**** > > > Understanding the complex multidisciplinary nature and regime involving > many issues, actors, mechanisms, procedures and instruments; I present > myself for service in the next election for the *Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC) - **Coordinator*.**** > > * > * > > *“Do we have to Universalize Internet Governance development at the > expense of the richness of diversity?”* > > * > * > > *‘How can we promote universal understanding, taking into account what > Internet Governance development means to each community without promoting > the hegemony of our own perception of Internet Governance development?’* > > > Free Internet will lead to more transparency and political accountability > which I greatly preserve, keeping in mind the borderless nature of the > Internet.**** > > > My vision is to utilize and harmonise resources, human and material > resources for the continuous development of the Internet for the benefit of > the generality of man and our environment, to the glory of the Almighty.** > ** > > > To the Internet Governance Caucus, I pledge my love and toil and with > abiding faith in Almighty Creator, aspire to develop a well-articulated, > determined, coordinated and disciplined program to succeed. The like of > which has not to date been obtained in IGC.**** > > > With a focus on Top Down services from our team to help up-lift the poor > that act in Bottom Up activities; with the involvement of a variety of > stakeholders who differ in many aspects, including international legal > capacity with interest in Internet Governance issues, and available > expertise to:**** > > > - · Promote the growth of mutual trust and respect for all > - · Reach out with governments and inter-governmental agencies > through the enhancement of Civil Society Voice and non-state actors in the > Internet Governance Forum process. > - · To be part of a team that will lay out an approach that > unifies our engagement in ushering a new era of International Cooperation. > - · Together, we can work to build a future for the IGC that is > open, interoperable, secure and reliable. > - · Creating enabling environment for increase collaborations among > the multi-stakeholders to contribute to the discussion and implementation of > outcomes with governments which will truly promote the vertical and > horizontal management of the Internet. > > > The Internet continues to expand at a rapid rate, not only in terms of the > number of users but also in terms of the services that it offers. And I > believe we all want the IGC transformation with vast potentials resulting in > good relationship with Business and Technical communities.**** > > > To achieve the above, I propose to put in place the following: > > a. 1. Strategy and contact Committee **** > > b. 2. Economic Committee**** > > c. 3. Finance Committee**** > > > With the following terms of reference:**** > > > - · Strategy and Contact Committee > > o Identify specific goals and objectives**** > > o Develop programmes for achieving goals**** > > o Establish contacts and links with governments, private sector, Civil > Societies, non-state actors and intergovernmental agencies**** > > o Develop strategies for political empowerment**** > > o Lobbying**** > > o Propaganda**** > > o Press relations**** > > o Protocol**** > > > - · Economic Committee > > o Develop economic blueprint for the Internet Governance Caucus**** > > o Analyse investment and research opportunities**** > > o Monitor implementation of projects**** > > > - · Finance Committee > > o Identify ways of enhancing financial positions of members**** > > o Prepare revenue projections**** > > o Identify and harness ways and means of generating funds**** > > o Identify specific source of funding for specific projects**** > > o Treasury**** > > > Finally, with variable geometric approach, we will bridge the principal > challenge for many governments to develop a strategy to gather and > effectively coordinate support from non-state actors, such as universities, > private companies, and non-governmental organizations that have the > necessary expertise to deal with Internet Governance Issues.**** > > * > * > > *Your votes will make a great difference*.**** > > > Thank you.**** > > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji **** > > (aka) *Sea***** > > -- > Sonigitu Ekpe > *Project Support Officer[Agriculturist]* > Cross River Farm Credit Scheme > Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources > 3 Barracks Road P.M.B. 1119 > Calabar - Cross River State, Nigeria. > Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 > *"LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" * > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > The information contained in this communication is confidential and may be > legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or > entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. If you > are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, > copying, distribution or taking action in reliance of the contents of this > information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kindly destroy this > message and notify the sender by replying the email in such instances. We do > not accept responsibility for any changes made to this message after it was > originally sent and any views, opinions, conclusions or other information in > this message which do not relate to the business of this firm or are not > authorized by us.The Cross River State Government is not liable neither for > the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this > communication nor any delay in its receipt. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Asif Kabani Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Thu Oct 6 16:47:33 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 21:47:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion In-Reply-To: <4E8DC8DD.3050507@itforchange.net> References: <642B917C-5716-482B-A842-B04B620EB0E8@ciroap.org> <4E8DC8DD.3050507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear All, Great inputs from Parminder! Warm regards, On 6 Oct 2011 20:43, "parminder" wrote: ** I am not happy with the IGC just calling for civil society inclusion. It is not enough if 20 largest governments along with largely their industry take important Internet related decisions, even if they include respective civil societies (or even the broader global civil society) . Internet is global, and its major decisions should be taken by a globally representative forum. For this reason, whenever we write such letters for including civil society in select country confabulations, we should also ask for all countries to be included. For this purpose appropriate institutional forms must be evolved. I have no basic objection to some country meeting on select issues and discussing things, However, this kind of thing happening in the context of a deep global democratic deficit in IG area, and to the extent such meeting perpetuate this democratic deficit, is what is the problem. We must have a clear view on this 'problem'. Otherwise I find the letter quite good. Can we inquire with the drafters of the letter if we can add a sentence on non inclusion of all countries in such 'global' IG discussions as we call for inclusion of the civil society. parminder On Thursday 06 October 2011 06:32 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 06/10/2011, at 12:39 AM, Izu... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Thu Oct 6 16:55:36 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 21:55:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Acknowledgement and Expression of Gratitude In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It was really a beautiful experience Sala! This is how the Internet will make all Nations beautiful and welcoming to humans of all race. I had a great remote participation from my base. Warm regards, Sea On 6 Oct 2011 20:34, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, I would like to publicly thank the Kenyans for hosting the IGF this year, it was certainly memorable. It was great to experience the Kenyan hospitality and also thank you to all who helped to make it an interesting Forum. I will never forget seeing the monkeys play in the trees next to the tent on Day 1 in the afternoon as if to say, "Welcome to Kenya!" nor watching with amusement as birds (hawks or a breed of eagles ???) swoop to take people's food off their plates at lunch time on Day 2. It was great to meet old friends and make new ones. Thank you also to Grace for making our time at the airport immigration a seamless one. Asante sana Kenya! -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Thu Oct 6 17:01:14 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:01:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Election Statement In-Reply-To: References: <1317809158975673000@crossriverstate.gov.ng> Message-ID: Great Asif, Thank you for the acknowledgments. Warm regards, Sea On 6 Oct 2011 07:34, "Asif Kabani" wrote: Dear Sonigitu Thank you for your message, Good to hear from you. Regards On 5 October 2011 15:05, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > > > > Fellows and friends, > > > > > > Understanding the complex multidisciplinary nature and regime involvi... > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Asif Kabani Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 6 17:14:10 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 00:14:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion In-Reply-To: References: <642B917C-5716-482B-A842-B04B620EB0E8@ciroap.org> <4E8DC8DD.3050507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > Dear All, > > Great inputs from Parminder! Except that he wants "major decisions should be taken by a globally representative forum.", when in fact, it is multiple fora each making decisions about their own little corner of the Internet that has been the successful model of what we now call Internet governance. -- 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 Fri Oct 7 00:08:58 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:38:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion In-Reply-To: References: <642B917C-5716-482B-A842-B04B620EB0E8@ciroap.org> <4E8DC8DD.3050507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4E8E7B5A.9060500@itforchange.net> On Friday 07 October 2011 02:44 AM, McTim wrote: > > Except that he wants "major decisions should be taken by a globally > representative forum.", The reference to a 'globally representative forum' is vis a vis the kind of 'decisions' that OECD, G 8 and G 20 kind of forums take. In general, for a wiser set of functions we can speak of forums instead of forum as long as we dont forget the 'globally representative part'. It is also somewhat amazing how easily how ignore that part - about the undemocratic nature of global decisions/ policy making in relation to the Internet. > when in fact, it is multiple fora each making > decisions about their own little corner of the Internet 'the little corner' thing is a myth. Most of them make decisions for the Internet for the whole world, and you know it. > that has been > the successful model of what we now call Internet governance. > Successful for whom? That always is 'the' question. Internet's net neutrality is now increasingly being 'officially' transgressed. What was a public network of millions of networks, is now increasingly largely consisting of few mega private spaces. The story can go on....... parminder > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Oct 7 00:17:37 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 12:17:37 +0800 Subject: [governance] Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion In-Reply-To: <4E8DC8DD.3050507@itforchange.net> References: <642B917C-5716-482B-A842-B04B620EB0E8@ciroap.org> <4E8DC8DD.3050507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4E8E7D61.7040900@ciroap.org> On 06/10/11 23:27, parminder wrote: > Can we inquire with the drafters of the letter if we can add a > sentence on non inclusion of all countries in such 'global' IG > discussions as we call for inclusion of the civil society. Irene Prevedello is following this list but I will also specifically ask her about this off-list too. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From iza at anr.org Fri Oct 7 00:22:42 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 13:22:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion In-Reply-To: <4E8E7D61.7040900@ciroap.org> References: <642B917C-5716-482B-A842-B04B620EB0E8@ciroap.org> <4E8DC8DD.3050507@itforchange.net> <4E8E7D61.7040900@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thanks Jeremy, I also agree with Parminder to ask for additional sentence is a good request. Hope it be included in time. If not, we can still sign and continue to expand the scope. I am sure the drafter will agree, though. The letter saying "the process leading and following these meetings". izumi 2011年10月7日13:17 Jeremy Malcolm : > On 06/10/11 23:27, parminder wrote: > > Can we inquire with the drafters of the letter if we can add a sentence on > non inclusion of all countries in such 'global' IG discussions as we call > for inclusion of the civil society. > > Irene Prevedello is following this list but I will also specifically ask her > about this off-list too. > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Oct 7 02:35:49 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:35:49 +0800 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? Message-ID: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> The IBSA proposal, in some form, will be issued at the upcoming Summit on 18-19 October. This leaves us about a week if we want to issue a statement ahead of that Summit with our input on the proposal. Should we do this? -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Fri Oct 7 03:04:22 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 08:04:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, Greetings! Thanks for the update. It will be very very useful to issue a statement ahead of the summit. Warm regards. Sonigitu Ekpe *Project Support Officer[Agriculturist]* Cross River Farm Credit Scheme Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources 3 Barracks Road P.M.B. 1119 Calabar - Cross River State, Nigeria. Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 Skype: sonigitu.asibong.ekpe.aji *"LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" * On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > ** > The IBSA proposal, in some form, will be issued at the upcoming Summit on > 18-19 October. This leaves us about a week if we want to issue a statement > ahead of that Summit with our input on the proposal. > > Should we do this? > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 04:06:53 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 13:06:53 +0500 Subject: [governance] Next CSTD WG meeting scheduled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Marilia, Apparently this will be for the working group members to decide if they wish to open up the working group to non-contributing observers. In my discussion with the new chair, and as I asked this question, there appeared to be no understanding so far about allowing observers so this may be an important discussion point to raise. Does the working group have some mailing list where this question can be raised by its members? On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > The next meeting of the CSTD WG for IGF improvement has been scheduled for > 31 Oct until 02 Nov, in Geneva. Apparently, it will be open only for > participants of the WG, but as the chair has changed, I think it could be > useful to write to him and ask about the possibility of allowing observers > in the room. > So far only the last two reports have been made available in the website, > but Peter Major said he is going to present an input for discussion. > > http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Meeting.asp?intItemID=2068&lang=1&m=22711&year=2011&month=10 > Best, > Marília > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 04:09:45 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 13:09:45 +0500 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy, Is there any document that details the IBSA Internet Governance Proposal? So far I have read two documents, one from last year and a summary from this year but it seems that I am unable to find a detailed document/transcript/record of the discussion and proposal. It would be wise to first read through the whole document before we attempt to create a statement? Best Fouad On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The IBSA proposal, in some form, will be issued at the upcoming Summit on > 18-19 October.  This leaves us about a week if we want to issue a statement > ahead of that Summit with our input on the proposal. > > Should we do this? > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 04:16:02 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 13:16:02 +0500 Subject: [governance] Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion In-Reply-To: <4E8E7B5A.9060500@itforchange.net> References: <642B917C-5716-482B-A842-B04B620EB0E8@ciroap.org> <4E8DC8DD.3050507@itforchange.net> <4E8E7B5A.9060500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I agree with Parminders view about globally representative forums....... On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:08 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 07 October 2011 02:44 AM, McTim wrote: > > Except that he wants "major decisions should be taken by a globally > representative forum.", > > The reference to a 'globally representative forum' is vis a vis the kind of > 'decisions' that OECD, G 8 and G 20 kind of forums take. In general, for a > wiser set of functions we can speak of forums instead of forum as long as we > dont forget the 'globally representative part'. It is also somewhat amazing > how easily how ignore that part - about the undemocratic nature of global > decisions/ policy making in relation to the Internet. > > when in fact, it is multiple fora each making > decisions about their own little corner of the Internet > > 'the little corner' thing is a myth. Most of them make decisions for the > Internet for the whole world, and you know it. > > that has been > the successful model of what we now call Internet governance. > > > Successful for whom? That always is 'the' question. Internet's net > neutrality is now increasingly being 'officially' transgressed. What was a > public network of millions of networks, is now increasingly largely > consisting of few mega private spaces. The story can go on.......  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 > > > -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Oct 7 04:25:27 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:25:27 +0800 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4E8EB777.8010108@ciroap.org> On 07/10/11 16:09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Is there any document that details the IBSA Internet Governance > Proposal? So far I have read two documents, one from last year and a > summary from this year but it seems that I am unable to find a > detailed document/transcript/record of the discussion and proposal. It > would be wise to first read through the whole document before we > attempt to create a statement? Not yet. The summary document is at http://www.culturalivre.org.br/artigos/IBSA_recommendations_Internet_Governance.pdf. The more detailed document is scheduled to be presented in Durban this month, hopefully incorporating some of the feedback received on the summary. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 06:00:24 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 22:00:24 +1200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Nobel Peace Prize Recipients! Message-ID: To the Women who received the Nobel Peace Prize and the struggle for peace in Liberia and Yemen and for whom you represent and the countless lives that were lost in the process, the prize is also in their memory. I will never forget the impact that "Iron Women in Liberia" had on me as I watched the documentary a few years ago. Congratulations! (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2011/) - The Nobel Peace Prize 2011Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee, Tawakkul Karman The Nobel Peace Prize 2011Ellen Johnson SirleafLeymah Gbowee Tawakkul Karman [image: Ellen Johnson Sirleaf] Photo: A. Cruz/ABr. Creative Commons License Attr. 2.5 Brazil [image: Leymah Gbowee] Photo: Michael Angelo for Wonderland [image: Tawakkul Karman] Photo: Ahmed Jadallah/Scanpix Ellen Johnson Sirleaf Leymah Gbowee Tawakkul Karman -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From admin at alkasir.com Fri Oct 7 06:13:32 2011 From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid AL-SAQAF ) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:13:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Nobel Peace Prize Recipients! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Indeed, particularly my colleague Tawakkol has been really struggling under government threats. She is a symbol of women in the ongoing Arab Spring. What a good time to reflect the true picture of Yemen, something the world never saw. BTW, here is a link to a TED Talk by my sister Nadia that came in good time to show the real Yemen that is different than what is portrayed by the mainstream media: http://www.ted.com/talks/nadia_al_sakkaf_see_yemen_through_my_eyes.html Sincerely, Walid ----------------- Walid Al-Saqaf Founder & Administrator alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship https://alkasir.com On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > To the Women who received the Nobel Peace Prize and the struggle for peace > in Liberia and Yemen and for whom you represent and the countless lives that > were lost in the process, the prize is also in their memory. I will never > forget the impact that "Iron Women in Liberia" had on me as I watched the > documentary a few years ago. Congratulations! > > (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2011/) > > - > > > The Nobel Peace Prize 2011 Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee, Tawakkul > Karman > The Nobel Peace Prize 2011 Ellen > Johnson Sirleaf Leymah > Gbowee Tawakkul > Karman > [image: Ellen Johnson Sirleaf] > Photo: A. Cruz/ABr. Creative Commons License Attr. 2.5 Brazil > [image: Leymah Gbowee] > Photo: Michael Angelo for Wonderland > [image: Tawakkul Karman] > Photo: Ahmed Jadallah/Scanpix > Ellen Johnson Sirleaf > Leymah Gbowee > Tawakkul Karman > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Oct 7 06:15:00 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:15:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> Message-ID: So we're commenting on the summary? Perhaps we should just endorse the Nupef's statement ? Adam >The IBSA proposal, in some form, will be issued at the upcoming >Summit on 18-19 October. This leaves us about a week if we want to >issue a statement ahead of that Summit with our input on the >proposal. > >Should we do this? > >-- > >Dr Jeremy Malcolm >Project Coordinator >Consumers International >Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >Lumpur, Malaysia >Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer >groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only >independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over >220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a >powerful international movement to help protect and empower >consumers everywhere. >www.consumersinternational.org >Twitter @ConsumersInt > >Read our > email >confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > >Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" >Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:smime 37.p7s ( / ) (0053DD04) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 06:21:58 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 22:21:58 +1200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Nobel Peace Prize Recipients! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Walid. I enjoyed the link. On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Walid AL-SAQAF < admin at alkasir.com> wrote: > Indeed, particularly my colleague Tawakkol has been really struggling under > government threats. She is a symbol of women in the ongoing Arab Spring. > What a good time to reflect the true picture of Yemen, something the world > never saw. BTW, here is a link to a TED Talk by my sister Nadia that came in > good time to show the real Yemen that is different than what is portrayed by > the mainstream media: > http://www.ted.com/talks/nadia_al_sakkaf_see_yemen_through_my_eyes.html > > Sincerely, > > Walid > > ----------------- > > Walid Al-Saqaf > Founder & Administrator > alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship > https://alkasir.com > > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> To the Women who received the Nobel Peace Prize and the struggle for peace >> in Liberia and Yemen and for whom you represent and the countless lives that >> were lost in the process, the prize is also in their memory. I will never >> forget the impact that "Iron Women in Liberia" had on me as I watched the >> documentary a few years ago. Congratulations! >> >> (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2011/) >> >> - >> >> >> The Nobel Peace Prize 2011 Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee, >> Tawakkul Karman >> The Nobel Peace Prize 2011 Ellen >> Johnson Sirleaf Leymah >> Gbowee Tawakkul >> Karman >> [image: Ellen Johnson Sirleaf] >> Photo: A. Cruz/ABr. Creative Commons License Attr. 2.5 Brazil >> [image: Leymah Gbowee] >> Photo: Michael Angelo for Wonderland >> [image: Tawakkul Karman] >> Photo: Ahmed Jadallah/Scanpix >> Ellen Johnson Sirleaf >> Leymah Gbowee >> Tawakkul Karman >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Fri Oct 7 06:24:46 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:24:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Next CSTD WG meeting scheduled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good point Fouad. It will be fine to get contacts for further discussions on this. Sonigitu Ekpe *Project Support Officer[Agriculturist]* Cross River Farm Credit Scheme Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources 3 Barracks Road P.M.B. 1119 Calabar - Cross River State, Nigeria. Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 Skype: sonigitu.asibong.ekpe.aji *"LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" * On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hi Marilia, > > Apparently this will be for the working group members to decide if > they wish to open up the working group to non-contributing observers. > In my discussion with the new chair, and as I asked this question, > there appeared to be no understanding so far about allowing observers > so this may be an important discussion point to raise. Does the > working group have some mailing list where this question can be raised > by its members? > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Marilia Maciel > wrote: > > > > The next meeting of the CSTD WG for IGF improvement has been scheduled > for > > 31 Oct until 02 Nov, in Geneva. Apparently, it will be open only for > > participants of the WG, but as the chair has changed, I think it could be > > useful to write to him and ask about the possibility of allowing > observers > > in the room. > > So far only the last two reports have been made available in the website, > > but Peter Major said he is going to present an input for discussion. > > > > > http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Meeting.asp?intItemID=2068&lang=1&m=22711&year=2011&month=10 > > Best, > > Marília > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > -- > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 06:29:27 2011 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:29:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Nobel Peace Prize Recipients! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratualtions to the winners. I'll rcommend that they stay in the foot steps of Maathai Waangari and not be stooges of the West as Desmond Tutu, Koffi Annan and Wole Soyinka have proven if we go by their pronouncements on events in Ivory Cooast and Libya. Obama won the peace prize and encouraged the war in Ivory Coast and Libya while Ellen Johnson encouraged the war in Côte d'Ivoire and Libya before winning the prize. A paradox? Aaron On 10/7/11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > To the Women who received the Nobel Peace Prize and the struggle for peace > in Liberia and Yemen and for whom you represent and the countless lives that > were lost in the process, the prize is also in their memory. I will never > forget the impact that "Iron Women in Liberia" had on me as I watched the > documentary a few years ago. Congratulations! > > (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2011/) > > - > > > The Nobel Peace Prize 2011Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee, Tawakkul > Karman > The Nobel Peace Prize > 2011Ellen > Johnson > SirleafLeymah > Gbowee > Tawakkul > Karman > [image: Ellen Johnson > Sirleaf] > Photo: A. Cruz/ABr. Creative Commons License Attr. 2.5 Brazil > [image: Leymah > Gbowee] > Photo: Michael Angelo for Wonderland > [image: Tawakkul > Karman] > Photo: Ahmed Jadallah/Scanpix > Ellen Johnson Sirleaf > Leymah Gbowee > Tawakkul Karman > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Oct 7 06:41:16 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 18:41:16 +0800 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4E8ED74C.1070200@ciroap.org> On 07/10/11 18:15, Adam Peake wrote: > So we're commenting on the summary? > > Perhaps we should just endorse the Nupef's statement > ? Or we could delay by a couple of weeks and comment on whatever is presented at the Summit. My ulterior motive for suggesting we do something earlier is that there is a chance that I, or at least a colleague, may be in South Africa for the Summit and could present something in person. But if we have nothing to add to what we have said at the IGF or what Nupef has said, there may be no need. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Oct 7 07:08:25 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 20:08:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <4E8ED74C.1070200@ciroap.org> References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> <4E8ED74C.1070200@ciroap.org> Message-ID: It's worth stying something, endorse Nupef and go further: emphasize our disappointment that the recommendation is misleadingly represented as the outcome of an multi-stakeholder meeting. That the IGC strongly disagrees with the creation of a new body, and strongly disagrees with the six points about such a body. Suggest that the creation of an IBSA IG development observatory based on such misleading interpretations would be ill advised. Adam >On 07/10/11 18:15, Adam Peake wrote: > >>So we're commenting on the summary? >> >>Perhaps we should just endorse the Nupef's statement >> >>? >> > >Or we could delay by a couple of weeks and comment on whatever is >presented at the Summit. My ulterior motive for suggesting we do >something earlier is that there is a chance that I, or at least a >colleague, may be in South Africa for the Summit and could present >something in person. But if we have nothing to add to what we have >said at the IGF or what Nupef has said, there may be no need. > >-- > >Dr Jeremy Malcolm >Project Coordinator >Consumers International >Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >Lumpur, Malaysia >Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer >groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only >independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over >220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a >powerful international movement to help protect and empower >consumers everywhere. >www.consumersinternational.org >Twitter @ConsumersInt > >Read our > email >confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > >Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" >Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:smime 40.p7s ( / ) (005491F3) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 07:09:47 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:09:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> <4E8ED74C.1070200@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > It's worth stying something, endorse Nupef and go further:  emphasize our > disappointment that the recommendation is misleadingly represented as the > outcome of an multi-stakeholder meeting.  That the IGC strongly disagrees > with the creation of a new body, and strongly disagrees with the six points > about such a body.  Suggest that the creation of an IBSA IG development > observatory based on such misleading interpretations would be ill advised. +1 -- 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 Fri Oct 7 07:17:15 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 23:17:15 +1200 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> <4E8ED74C.1070200@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Actually I propose that the IGC does not rely on Nupef's submissions soley. It is critical that the global civil society has a view on the issue as we could be later blamed for not speaking out when we had the opportunity to do so. These are some thoughts: Noting that reference to the IBSA Multistakeholder meeting on Global Internet Governance was restricted to public and private sector within India and Brazil and civil society in Brazil although there has been some notable contentions by Nupef [insert hyperlink to Nupef’s publicised statement]. Acknowledging the advice given to the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) by one of the organisers of the IBSA meeting. Noting that the spirit of Global Internet Governance demands that any discussions affecting the evolution of internet governance discussions should involve the global internet community through the global internet governance forums that are convened annually; [Suggestion to IGC: We can hold a white monkey survey and take a vote on the issue – although we should be prepared for the results] My personal views on the matter are that the greatest strength of the Internet Governance Forum is that it is transparent, democratic and multi-stakeholder and to create an institution to manage global internet processes to develop processes for internet at global level needs to be urgently addressed could threaten vulnerable groups. In WGIG 2005 Report V. A. 36 recommended the “creation of new space for dialogue for all stakeholders on an equal footing on all Internet governance related issues”. Acknowledging that the WGIG in its 2005 report concluded that there is merit in improving institutional coordination as well as coordination among all stakeholders at the regional, subregional and national levels, the IGC believes that this does not justify the creation of an institution. The United Nations Internet Governance Secretariat (“Secretariat”) already exists and if the stakeholders within the IBSA feel that coordination can be improved then it should communicate to the Secretariat what it feels could be strengthened. In my view to bypass the Secretariat and lobby within the United Nations General Assembly is to act in bad faith of the machinery that is already available to us as members of the Internet Universe. In UN meetings, only governments are given votes and in some instances there are forced governments which are not elected etc. In having a forum like the current IGF model people can have freedom of expression. The use of “multilateral” goes against the grain of the core definition of Internet Governance that was developed in the WGIG 2005 report that the then UN Secretary General commissioned which was subsequently endorsed by member states of the UN. The WGIG 2005 Report further reinforced the inclusiveness approach and to shift the spotlight on a single spectrum, albeit powerful spectrum, is to forever alter the “inclusiveness” approach. Did the Tunis Agenda mention “multilateral”? In fact Part IV of the WGIG 2005 Report talks about developing a common understanding of the roles of government, private sector and civil society. The use of fragmentation of the internet, disjointed policy making needs to be substantiated by solid empirical evidence and research so that in a transparent nature, the members of the internet universe can decide whether and how improvements should be made. For instance, I see it as the responsibility of people from within the regions that they are respectively from to empower and enlighten their people to participate in policy processes. If they are denied the opportunity to participate and participate meaningful, then we have a serious problem but until then, we should seek to support the multi-stakeholder model. If for some reason, the developing world feels that they are not given the opportunity to have their say, then they should speak up and move into positions where they can contribute and speak up for their communities. We need to encourage catalysts within regions to work closely with the United Nations Internet Governance Secretariat Remote Participation team and Network Operator Groups (NOGs), Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and other stakeholders within the region to ensure cohesive participation for all. This should be an enhancement of process which is something that the Coordinators can lobby and push for in a strategic coherent manner. Sala On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:09 PM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > It's worth stying something, endorse Nupef and go further: emphasize our > > disappointment that the recommendation is misleadingly represented as the > > outcome of an multi-stakeholder meeting. That the IGC strongly disagrees > > with the creation of a new body, and strongly disagrees with the six > points > > about such a body. Suggest that the creation of an IBSA IG development > > observatory based on such misleading interpretations would be ill > advised. > > +1 > > -- > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 07:47:36 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 23:47:36 +1200 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> <4E8ED74C.1070200@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Pardon the typos, it's midnight here :) On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Actually I propose that the IGC does not rely on Nupef's submissions soley. > It is critical that the global civil society has a view on the issue as we > could be later blamed for not speaking out when we had the opportunity to do > so. These are some thoughts: > > Noting that reference to the IBSA Multistakeholder meeting on Global > Internet Governance was restricted to public and private sector within India > and Brazil and civil society in Brazil although there has been some notable > contentions by Nupef [insert hyperlink to Nupef’s publicised statement]. > > > Acknowledging the advice given to the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) by > one of the organisers of the IBSA meeting. > > > Noting that the spirit of Global Internet Governance demands that any > discussions affecting the evolution of internet governance discussions > should involve the global internet community through the global internet > governance forums that are convened annually; > > > [Suggestion to IGC: We can hold a white monkey survey and take a vote on > the issue – although we should be prepared for the results] > > > My personal views on the matter are that the greatest strength of the > Internet Governance Forum is that it is transparent, democratic and > multi-stakeholder and to create an institution to manage global internet > processes to develop processes for internet at global level needs to be > urgently addressed could threaten vulnerable groups. In WGIG 2005 Report V. > A. 36 recommended the “creation of new space for dialogue for all > stakeholders on an equal footing on all Internet governance related issues”. > > > Acknowledging that the WGIG in its 2005 report concluded that there is > merit in improving institutional coordination as well as coordination among > all stakeholders at the regional, subregional and national levels, the IGC > believes that this does not justify the creation of an institution. > > > The United Nations Internet Governance Secretariat (“Secretariat”) already > exists and if the stakeholders within the IBSA feel that coordination can be > improved then it should communicate to the Secretariat what it feels could > be strengthened. In my view to bypass the Secretariat and lobby within the > United Nations General Assembly is to act in bad faith of the machinery that > is already available to us as members of the Internet Universe. > > > In UN meetings, only governments are given votes and in some instances > there are forced governments which are not elected etc. In having a forum > like the current IGF model people can have freedom of expression. The use of > “multilateral” goes against the grain of the core definition of Internet > Governance that was developed in the WGIG 2005 report that the then UN > Secretary General commissioned which was subsequently endorsed by member > states of the UN. > > > The WGIG 2005 Report further reinforced the inclusiveness approach and to > shift the spotlight on a single spectrum, albeit powerful spectrum, is to > forever alter the “inclusiveness” approach. Did the Tunis Agenda mention > “multilateral”? > > > In fact Part IV of the WGIG 2005 Report talks about developing a common > understanding of the roles of government, private sector and civil society. > > > The use of fragmentation of the internet, disjointed policy making needs to > be substantiated by solid empirical evidence and research so that in a > transparent nature, the members of the internet universe can decide whether > and how improvements should be made. For instance, I see it as the > responsibility of people from within the regions that they are respectively > from to empower and enlighten their people to participate in policy > processes. If they are denied the opportunity to participate and participate > meaningful, then we have a serious problem but until then, we should seek to > support the multi-stakeholder model. > > > If for some reason, the developing world feels that they are not given the > opportunity to have their say, then they should speak up and move into > positions where they can contribute and speak up for their communities. We > need to encourage catalysts within regions to work closely with the United > Nations Internet Governance Secretariat Remote Participation team and > Network Operator Groups (NOGs), Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and other > stakeholders within the region to ensure cohesive participation for all. > This should be an enhancement of process which is something that the > Coordinators can lobby and push for in a strategic coherent manner. > > > > Sala > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:09 PM, McTim wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> > It's worth stying something, endorse Nupef and go further: emphasize >> our >> > disappointment that the recommendation is misleadingly represented as >> the >> > outcome of an multi-stakeholder meeting. That the IGC strongly >> disagrees >> > with the creation of a new body, and strongly disagrees with the six >> points >> > about such a body. Suggest that the creation of an IBSA IG development >> > observatory based on such misleading interpretations would be ill >> advised. >> >> +1 >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Oct 7 09:41:33 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:41:33 -0300 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4E8F018D.9050809@cafonso.ca> I think we can and should do better. I recall this part of Nupef's statement: "Nupef recognizes that the IBSA recommendations might be an interesting starting point for a discussion if reformulated and improved, not only in its content but also in the process of its further development, including a wider range of civil society voices in an open, participatory and transparent process." This is what I think we should be proactively doing. What could be improved, changed (in what direction), discarded and so on? Nupef is trying to do its part in a dialogue with the BR gov (unfortunately in pt_br so far). I suspect the SA CS is trying to do the same, and so are our CS fellows from India. Time is quite short, though. frt rgds --c.a. On 10/07/2011 07:15 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > So we're commenting on the summary? > > Perhaps we should just endorse the Nupef's statement > ? > > Adam > > > >> The IBSA proposal, in some form, will be issued at the upcoming Summit >> on 18-19 October. This leaves us about a week if we want to issue a >> statement ahead of that Summit with our input on the proposal. >> >> Should we do this? >> >> -- >> >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer >> groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only >> independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over >> 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful >> international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. >> www.consumersinternational.org >> Twitter @ConsumersInt >> >> Read our >> email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" >> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" >> Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature >> >> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:smime 37.p7s ( / ) (0053DD04) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 15:15:16 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:15:16 -0700 Subject: FW: Re: [governance] Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion Message-ID: <166ADED307F040DF9E435558D3B0C894@acer6e40e97492> Hmmm... So the "1 per cent" are going to have a discussion on "democracy and the Internet" and "the Internet for all"... that should be interesting... M -----Original Message----- From: Irene Prevedello [mailto:irene.prevedello at agoradigitale.org] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 3:42 AM To: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: Luca Nicotra; michael gurstein; izumi at anr.org Subject: Re: Re: [governance] Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion Dear Jeremy, .... Anyway, we have some new information about the meeting. You'll find it at the end of the mail. Best, Irene Team Agorà Digitale New World 2.0: Concretising the Internet of the future Paris – 20 & 21 Octobre 2011 PROGRAMME Thursday 20 Octobre 18.00 – 19.30 : Panel-discussion The Public Space of the 21st century: does the Internet safeguard political democracy? Friday 21 Octobre 8.30-9.00: welcome of participants Conference Center Pierre Mendès-France, Ministry of economy, finances and industry 9.00 – 9.30: Opening. 9.30-11.00: Plenary session 1 Innovation: networks’ friend or foe? 11.00 -11.30: break / networking / bilateral meetings. 11.30-13.00: Plenary session 2 Reconciling the Internet business model and respect for privacy? 13.00-14.30 : Luncheon. Conference Center Pierre Mendès-France 14.30-16.00: Plenary session 3 All against digital divides: the Internet for all. 16.00-16.30: Conclusion 17.00-18.30: Restricted session (all ministers and some entrepreneurs) What agenda for network security? Hôtel des Ministres 19.00 : Venture Capital night, in partnership with the « Camping » and « Biz Park » projects. Hôtel des Ministres -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 15:15:16 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:15:16 -0700 Subject: [governance] Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <56F47799B74242179D124FB8AB593DC3@acer6e40e97492> Hmmm... So the "1 per cent" are going to have a cozy chat on "the Internet and Democracy" and "Internet for all"... That should reassure us all... M -----Original Message----- From: Irene Prevedello [mailto:irene.prevedello at agoradigitale.org] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 3:42 AM To: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: Luca Nicotra; michael gurstein; izumi at anr.org Subject: Re: Re: [governance] Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion Dear Jeremy, ... Anyway, we have some new information about the meeting. You'll find it at the end of the mail. Best, Irene Team Agorà Digitale New World 2.0: Concretising the Internet of the future Paris – 20 & 21 Octobre 2011 PROGRAMME Thursday 20 Octobre 18.00 – 19.30 : Panel-discussion The Public Space of the 21st century: does the Internet safeguard political democracy? Friday 21 Octobre 8.30-9.00: welcome of participants Conference Center Pierre Mendès-France, Ministry of economy, finances and industry 9.00 – 9.30: Opening. 9.30-11.00: Plenary session 1 Innovation: networks’ friend or foe? 11.00 -11.30: break / networking / bilateral meetings. 11.30-13.00: Plenary session 2 Reconciling the Internet business model and respect for privacy? 13.00-14.30 : Luncheon. Conference Center Pierre Mendès-France 14.30-16.00: Plenary session 3 All against digital divides: the Internet for all. 16.00-16.30: Conclusion 17.00-18.30: Restricted session (all ministers and some entrepreneurs) What agenda for network security? Hôtel des Ministres 19.00 : Venture Capital night, in partnership with the « Camping » and « Biz Park » projects. Hôtel des Ministres -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Fri Oct 7 15:59:01 2011 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Matthias C. Kettemann) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 21:59:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] CfP - Workshop on "Legal Aspects of IG" at the IRIS2012, Salzburg, 23-25 Feb 2012 In-Reply-To: <56F47799B74242179D124FB8AB593DC3@acer6e40e97492> References: <56F47799B74242179D124FB8AB593DC3@acer6e40e97492> Message-ID: <4E8F5A05.5040802@uni-graz.at> (sorry for cross-posting) (please distribute widely) Dear all, please find enclosed (and below) a call for papers for an exciting workshop on "Legal Aspects of Internet Governance" at the IRIS 2012 in Salzburg, Austria, 23-25 February 2012. *Workshop "Legal Aspects of Internet Governance" Call for Papers * Internet governance is often defined as the development and application of principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. This definition encompasses norms of a legal character, as well as soft law and code and various combinations thereof. While this wide understanding potentially includes most aspects of IT law, the present workshop aims to address a variety of legal issues related to the governance of core elements of the Internet, including its technical architecture and institutions in a global context, and the impact of the recent surge of declarations of rights and principles by different stakeholders. October 31st, 2011 Abstract submission (300-500 characters) January 10th, 2012 Camera-ready papers to be published in the conference proceedings 23-25 February 2012 (workshop date TBD) Workshop to be held during International Legal Informatics Symposium (IRIS) in Salzburg, Austria Suggested content areas include, but are not limited to * the institutional framework for Internet governance (e.g. related to ICANN, IGF, etc. and reforms thereof); * public international law (including international human rights law) and Internet Governance; * international domain name law (including new top level domains); * legal issues regarding IP addresses; and * the impact and future of declarations of rights and principles on Internet Governance. Conference The International Legal Informatics Symposium (IRIS) will take place at the Law Faculty of the University of Salzburg from 23-25 February 2012. Already being in its 15th year, IRIS has been established as the largest and most important academic conference on computers and law in Austria and Central Europe. Conference and workshop participation is free of charge. Language The workshop’s working language is English, but the submission of papers in German is encouraged, provided that the paper is presented in English during the workshop. Most of the remaining conference is held in German, but an increasing number of workshops is offered in English. Abstract submission Abstracts (300-500 characters) should be submitted to http://irisj.eu/iris2012/SubmitAbstract.php In addition, an email to one of the co-chairs would be much appreciated. Publication Accepted papers will be published in the conference proceedings of the 15th IRIS symposium, to be available both electronically and in paper. Available formats are abstracts (2 pages), short papers (4 pages) or full papers (8 pages). Workshop chairs Dr. Tobias Mahler, LL.M., Norwegian Research Center for Computers and Law, University of Oslo, Norway tobias.mahler at jus.uio.no Mag. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M., Institute of International Law and International Relations, University of Graz, Austria matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at -- Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Teaching and Research Fellow Institute of International Law and International Relations University of Graz Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria T | +43 316 380 6711 (office) M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobile) F | +43 316 380 9455 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CFP IG Workshop Salzburg 2012.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 149499 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 17:59:00 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:29:00 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF output and continuation Workshop 67 E-participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ginger (Virginia) Paque Diplo Foundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org* Did I hear you say you wanted some output from the IGF process? Please help us continue the discussion started in Kenya... The IGF Kenya 2011 Workshop 67 E-participation Principles ( http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=67with background paper http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/components/com_chronocontact/uploads/WSProposals2011/20110922060910_WS%2016%20E-Participation%20Background.doc) produced a first draft of a set of principles for e-participation, particularly in reference to multistakeholder global policy processes as a concrete output of the workshop. This was produced in collaborative editing with *in situ* and remote attendees, all 'e-participants'. The discussion draft produced using iEtherpad ( iEtherpad.com ) during the workshop itself can be viewed at: http://diplo.ietherpad.com/ep/pad/view/ro.6Uq9$cCZ/rev.4000 A draft of the principles was drawn up based on that discussion, and is now open for comment at http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/e-participation/ Please visit the collaborative discussion page, to make your comments on any one of the sections 1. Inclusiveness (1) 2. Equality of participation (0) 3. Scale and stability (0) 4. Capacity building (0) 5. Providing platforms (0) 6. A case study: E-participation at the heart of the IGF (0) by clicking on the section name in the Table of Contents. You can then make a comment on any one of the principles on that page, by clicking on the succession icon. You can review other comments at the same time, and reply or build on another comment as well. After the draft is open for discussion for at least 30 days, and all points appear to be clarified, a second draft will be proposed for further comment. We look forward to your contributions. If you have any questions or suggestions, do not hesitate to contact me at VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu E-participate! :) Regards, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque Diplo Foundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org* On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Virginia Paque wrote: > Dear friends, > I would like to thank you sincerely for your participation on the > panel of WS 67 for e-participation principles. You formed a great > team, and delivered a wonderful presentation and project. > > All of the feedback I have received has been very positive. As you > saw, the iEtherpad document progressed amazingly well already during > the workshop (diplo.ietherpad.com/19). > > I am attaching the first draft of the principles, which is not the > complete document, of course. I will also send the Workshop report > next week for your review before I send it it. > > We will continue discussions and development of the principles, > guidelines and discussion, online, in the coming weeks. I will send > more details after we are all home from Nairobi and a bit rested. > > Sala, Nicolas, we missed you, but we know timing was complicated. > > If you have any questions or comments, please reply all to this email. > If you do not want to continue to be copied on the emails, please let > me know. > > With appreciation and warm thanks, > Gracias and saludos, > Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > Diplo Foundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Virginia Paque > wrote: > > Hi everyone! > > We are well on our way, with an updated WS proposal at: > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=67 > > > > We have quite an amazing panel: > > > > Raquel Gatto (moderator), Brazilian Network Information Center – > > NIC.br and IGF Remote Participation working group > > Jorge Plano, ISOC Argentina Chapter & DC on Accessibility and Disability > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Pacific region > > Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA > > Nicolas Caballero, IT Coordinator, Office of the President, Paraguay, > > FLOSS specialist (remote presenter) > > Sebastien Bachollet, ICANN Public Participation Committee > > Tim Davies, Practical Participation, Dynamic Coalition on Youth and > > Internet Governance, Oxford > > Jeremy Malcolm, IGC, Consumer's International, Malasia/Australia ( > > presenting by video) > > Markus Kummer, Vice-President, Public Policy, Internet Society (ISOC) > > Jovan Kurbalija, DiploFoundation e-participation and e-diplomacy > initiatives > > Sheba Mohammid, Rapporteur, ICT Policy Specialist > > Virginia Paque, Remote moderator, DiploFoundation > > > > You can see previous discussions below, but the main point is that our > > rapporteur and moderator need your short statement of viewpoint -- a > > summary of the main point and principle(s) you will propose in your > > strict 2-minute introductory intervention. This is also a good way to > > make sure your most important point gets included in the report, so > > take advantage! > > > > We will hold audience participants to the 2-minute limit as well. If > > there is another point you think is important, please send an > > appropriate question to this list. We will do our best to ask the > > question at an appropriate time, giving you 2 minutes to address that > > point as part of the discussion. > > > > I have attached our background paper. If you have any questions or > > suggestions, please let us know! I will now turn the organizer job > > over to your excellent moderator, Raquel Gatto. Those of you who don't > > know each other, please introduce yourselves! > > > > This is an important panel, and we need each one of you. Thank you for > > your collaboration! > > > > Warm wishes, > > See you in Nairobi (in person or online) > > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone.. > > I think that this is a very important panel, at a significant time in > > IGF development. RP is finally finding its significance for global > > policy processes, and we are ready to address the principles involved, > > instead of the techniques. > > > > > > > > > > Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Virginia Paque > wrote: > >> > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> Please confirm that you have read all of our information (see below), > and will be taking part in our Workshop 67 on E-participation principles at > the IGF 2011 in Nairobi, 9-10:30 on the 3rd day, the 29th of September. You > are expected to be in the room at least 15 minutes ahead of time to make > sure we have coordinated well. > >> > >> I assume you have reviewed your bios online and have no changes to make. > >> > >> As we get close to the date, it is important that you each send a short > note on the topic you intend to address in your 2-minute introduction (the > 2-minute limit will be strictly enforced at the beginning and during the > session). Please include the most important principle you think should be > respected in remote participation, so we have a starting point for > discussions. Please send these to 'reply all' as soon as possible, so > Marilia, as moderator, can be well-prepared. We will not take time for > complete introductions, since your bios are online. So it would be very > helpful if you also send your name as you would like to be introduced, and > the one most important thing you would like Marilia to mention about you or > your work. > >> > >> For example (not me, because I will be remote moderator, and will not be > a panelist, but as an example): > >> > >> Panelist name and intro: Ginger Paque from DiploFoundation, an original > founding member of the IGF remote participation working group. > >> Suggested Principle: Remote Participation should be readily available > and accessible even to those who have low bandwidth options. > >> > >> I have pasted below some panelist guidelines for your review: remember > that the idea of our panel is to have the participants--especially the > remote participants--express their views. This is about participation, not > presentations. We would like to have a set of discussed guidelines as an > output for our report. > >> > >> Here are some links on objectives, goals and strategies for Remote > Participation that you might find interesting as you prepare: > >> https://meetings.icann.org/remote-participation > >> http://meetings.apnic.net/30/remote/tools (some 'guidelines at the > bottom') > >> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/remote_aup.html > >> > >> You will note that these address tech and organizational guidelines for > the most part. We want to move beyond that to a few, important, overarching > principles, such as (not these, these are just quick examples): > >> > >> Remote Participation should be readily available and accessible even to > those who have low bandwidth options, for all global policy meetings. > >> Global policy and other meetings should actively encourage and support > remote participation from lesser heard voices as a priority for meeting > organization. > >> > >> Please do some publicity for our workshop: we want to have a good remote > participation, so that we can hear the views of those who need RP most of > all! > >> > >> Suggestions welcome. Your response required. Thanks so much! This is an > important workshop, and we appreciate your time and energy to support it. > Immediately below I have pasted the panel guidelines, just in case you find > it helpful. Below that is my previous email. > >> > >> We all need to hear from each of you as soon as possible! Gracias! > >> Ginger > >> > >> > >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque > >> Diplo Foundation > >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig > >> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > >> > >> Join the Diplo community IG discussions: > www.diplointernetgovernance.org > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Virginia Paque < > virginiap at diplomacy.edu> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello again, > >>> Our workshop proposal has been updated, and you can see the current > proposal below. Your bios are all online--please check to make sure they are > correct. > >>> > >>> As you know, this will be a round table discussion, where the > 'presenters' will be the participants, as our purpose is to gather input > from all regions of the world, and all stakeholders. Marilia will moderate > the session, and each of you will give a 2-minute maximum presentation of > what you consider the most important principle about > remote/online/e-participation. Ideally, you would sent these statements to > the group, so we are familiar with each other's positions, and do not repeat > them. > >>> > >>> The role of the panelists will be to be provocative, controversial and > dynamic, with very short, precise interventions, with the goal of gathering > a wide range of responses and reactions for further investigation. We do not > seek consensus, rather a diversity of opinion. I will send guidelines for > panelists for your 'reading pleasure', just as a reference. > >>> > >>> We are still waiting for confirmation from Mr. Kudric [Representative > from the Disability DC, or Mr. Todic (UN disability committee) (Serbia?)]. > We hope Jovan or Vlada will be able to communicate with him shortly. > >>> > >>> If you have any questions or doubts, please email, using 'reply all', > so we can discuss. > >>> Thank you very much for accepting a place on this workshop. I think it > will be very productive, and allow us to move the discussions on > e-participation from a 'technical level' to a policy and principle level. > >>> > >>> Workshop Proposals 2011 > >>> > >>> > >>> Workshop Number: 67 > >>> Title: E-participation Principles > >>> Status: > >>> ACCEPTED > >>> Concise Description: > >>> The workshop will consist of a roundtable discussion, in order to > ensure maximum interaction among participants. The issues will be framed as > questions, in order to foster a more focused debate and to reach more > concrete outcomes. > >>> Building up on the positive experience of remote participation during > IGF meetings, the workshop will explore two main topics: > >>> a) The ways to strengthen online interaction among the members of the > IGF community, in order to generate a continuous all-year debate, as > proposed during the discussions that took place in CSTD WG on IGF > improvement; > >>> b) A strategy to raise awareness and foster the use of online channels > for participation in other global meetings, with focus on the inclusion of > developing countries in international policy-shaping as an underlying > principle. > >>> > >>> The workshop will count on speakers from all stakeholder groups, not > only because the diversity of views leads to creative and out-of-the-box > suggestions, but also because improving e-/remote participation should be > seen as a collective responsibility of all the members of the community. > >>> > >>> The round table discussion will have two parts, focussing on answering > the following questions: > >>> Part 1: Principles and global strategies: > >>> What are the strategies to foster the use of channels for e-/remote > participation by developing countries, least developed countries and remote > areas? > >>> How can we formulate a strategy to raise awareness and foster the use > of online channels for participation in other global meetings, with focus on > the inclusion of developing countries in international policy-shaping? > >>> Can a set of principles and good practices be formulated to ensure the > effective impact of e-/remote participants on policy-shaping process? > >>> > >>> > >>> Part 2: Best practices and developing practices: > >>> > >>> How can the IGF community make use of online channels of communication > more efficiently to remain in contact and make the IGF a process that > develops throughout the year? > >>> How can we carry out at least one of the IGF open consultations > entirely online? > >>> How can we foster the participation of remote speakers and speakers > from hubs in workshops? > >>> Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does > your workshop fall under? > >>> Access and Diversity > >>> Have you organized an IGF workshop before? Yes > >>> If so, please provide the link to the report: > >>> > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposalsReports2010View&wspid=126 > >>> Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are planning > to invite: > >>> > >>> Representative from the Disability DC, or Mr. Todic (UN disability > committee) (Serbia?) > >>> Marilia Maciel (moderator), Getulio Vargas Foundation, Brazil > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Pacific region > >>> Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA > >>> Nicolas Caballero, IT Coordinator, Office of the President, Paraguay, > FLOSS specialist > >>> Jeremy Malcolm, IGC, Consumer's International, Malasia/Australia > >>> Jovan Kurbalija, DiploFoundation e-participation and e-diplomacy > initiatives > >>> Virginia Paque, remote moderator, DiploFoundation > >>> > >>> Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their > affiliation to various stakeholder groups: > >>> Virginia Paque > >>> DiploFoundation (diverse in gender, region and stakeholder groups) > >>> Remote Participation Working Group (diverse in gender, region and > stakeholder groups) > >>> Organization:DiploFoundation > >>> Contact Person: Virginia Paque > >>> > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Ginger > >>> > >>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque > >>> Diplo Foundation > >>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig > >>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > >>> > >>> Join the Diplo community IG discussions: > www.diplointernetgovernance.org > >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 22:14:43 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 14:14:43 +1200 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <4E8F018D.9050809@cafonso.ca> References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> <4E8F018D.9050809@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi guys, I edited my earlier comments, here is the revised version: *Noting* that reference to the IBSA Multistakeholder meeting on Global Internet Governance was restricted to public and private sector and civil society in India, Brazil and South Africa although there has been some notable contentions by Nupef[1]; *Acknowledging* the advice given to the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) by one of the organisers of the IBSA meeting that invitations were sent to diverse stakeholders and that proponents are desirous to solicit enhanced cooperation; *Noting* that the spirit of Global Internet Governance demands that any discussions affecting the evolution of internet governance discussions should involve the global internet community through the global internet governance forums that are convened annually; *Noting* the UN General Assembly Resolution A/63/202[2]emphasis for facilitation of meaningful participation and called on the Secretary General to provide a Report on enhanced cooperation; *Noting* the United Nations Economic and Social Council’s Report of the Secretary General on the Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy issues pertaining to the Internet (E/2009/92*)[3]; *Acknowledging* that the WGIG in its 2005 report concluded that there is merit in improving institutional coordination as well as coordination among all stakeholders at the regional, subregional and national levels, the IGC believes that this does not justify the creation of an institution[s1] ; [Suggestion to IGC: We can hold a white monkey survey and take a vote on the issue – although we should be prepared for the results] We the IGC hold the following views:- [*It is ok to put a diverse representation of our views on the matter and we all do not have to agree eg.* * * *Perspective 1* *Perspective 2* *Perspective 3* * * *It is perfectly understandable not to share the same view on things as we are from different contexts and perspectives. It is also ok to show where and in what instances we are in agreement eg. An open and free internet, meaningful participation even if we disagree on “methodologies”* ] *Sala’s views* (My personal views on the matter are that the greatest strength of the Internet Governance Forum is that it is transparent, democratic and multi-stakeholder and to create a single institution to manage global internet processes to develop processes for internet at global level could threaten vulnerable groups. The architecture of the Internet where diverse stakeholders have roles in managing different aspects makes “governance” using traditional governance models a challenge and is where the two diverse perspectives of “real law” and “cyber law” may never agree to meet and it is an attempt in futility to try to get them to agree. What should be done, in my view is to gather the philosophers to start thinking of existing or new philosophical foundations that can address this issue. Jean Jacques Rousseau who developed the social contract theory in the 18th Century clearly did not witness something like the global borderless internet. Where jurisdictions differ on how they are to control and regulate something so transcendently global and borderless. To this day, you can name the few instances where governments are in complete agreement on something and this is a testament to the diverse contexts and notions of sovereignty and interests. In WGIG 2005 Report V. A. 36 recommended the “creation of new space for dialogue for all stakeholders on an equal footing on all Internet governance related issues”. This has been successful in my view and I acknowledge that people view success differently as there are various yardsticks because people are different and expectations clearly differ. Clearly from observing the discussions on the list, it is clear that some measure success in getting clear outcomes which can be executed. Some are content to merely engage people in robust discussions etc. If one examines all the institutions and stakeholders within the Internet Universe, we will see that there is always room to improve and what processes currently exist where we can address this. Without a doubt, Internet governance discussions are on a crossroads. At the same time, it is imperative that we examine and dialogue on the drivers and motivations behind the IBSA. Should it justify the creation of a new entity and institution? The United Nations Internet Governance Secretariat (“Secretariat”) already exists and if the stakeholders within the IBSA feel that coordination can be improved then it should communicate to the Secretariat what it feels could be strengthened. In my view to bypass the Secretariat and lobby within the United Nations General Assembly is to act in bad faith of the machinery that is already available to us as members of the Internet Universe. [I am not sure whether a Survey has been done ever on the matter, perhaps it has, pardon my ignorance]. In UN meetings, only governments are given votes and in some instances there are forced governments which are not elected etc. In having a forum like the current IGF model people can have freedom of expression. The use of “multilateral” goes against the grain of the core definition of Internet Governance that was developed in the WGIG 2005 report that the then UN Secretary General commissioned which was subsequently endorsed by member states of the UN. Internet governance as defined by the WGIG 2005 Report “ is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet”. *Authentic enhanced cooperation* *should not* be regulated, it should be encouraged. The definition of Internet Governance in my view shows the beauty and the delicate compromise where stakeholders acknowledge that their roles and mandates clearly exist and that no one can take it away from them. There is nothing to stop governments from continuing in their roles and approaches to governance in their respective jurisdictions. Similarly with the private and civil society there is nothing to stop them from carrying out their usual business, responsibilities, mandates etc. This is what makes the world go round! The WGIG 2005 Report further reinforced the inclusiveness approach and to shift the spotlight on a single spectrum, albeit powerful spectrum, is to forever alter the “inclusiveness” approach. Did the Tunis Agenda mention “multilateral”? There are instances within the Internet Universe that wilkl require multilateral approaches to issues such as cyber security for instance. However, in terms of the broader framework of Internet Governance everyone has their place. In fact Part IV of the WGIG 2005 Report talks about developing a common understanding of the roles of government, private sector and civil society. The use of “fragmentation of the internet”, “disjointed policy making” within the IBSA needs to be substantiated by solid empirical evidence and research so that in a transparent nature, the members of the internet universe can decide whether and how improvements should be made. There should also be substantive discussions on whether existing procedures and processes have been exhausted to address these issues. In terms of encouraging access and participation in developing worlds, I see it as the responsibility of people from within the regions that they are respectively from to empower and enlighten their people to participate in policy processes. If they are denied the opportunity to participate and participate meaningful, then we have a serious problem but until then, we should seek to support the multi-stakeholder model. I welcome the call for A/63/202 for member states and UN members to allocate resources for meaningful participation. I also welcome moves by the Diplo Community to encourage e participation in policy processes. Institutions like ICANN are inclusive in their approach to receiving feedbacks from the all stakeholders through their diverse processes. Institutions like the ITU only permit governments and paying members such as Telcos and ISPs to participate in their processes. This is not a criticism of ITU nor is it praise for ICANN but a mere observation that all institutions have their place and mandates and together the internet universe and its stakeholders can work together to encourage and open and free internet. If for some reason, the developing world feels that they are not given the opportunity to have their say, then they should speak up and move into positions where they can contribute and speak up for their communities. We need to encourage catalysts within regions to work closely with the United Nations Internet Governance Secretariat Remote Participation team and Network Operator Groups (NOGs), Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and other stakeholders within the region to ensure cohesive participation for all. This should be an enhancement of process which is something that the Coordinators can lobby and push for in a strategic coherent manner. ) ------------------------------ [1] http://www.nupef.org.br/?q=node/84 [2] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/482/91/PDF/N0848291.pdf?OpenElement [3] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/e2009d92_en.pdf ------------------------------ [s1]This is where the survey will be useful (white monkey?) On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I think we can and should do better. I recall this part of Nupef's > statement: > > "Nupef recognizes that the IBSA recommendations might be an interesting > starting point for a discussion if reformulated and improved, not only > in its content but also in the process of its further development, > including a wider range of civil society voices in an open, > participatory and transparent process." > > This is what I think we should be proactively doing. What could be > improved, changed (in what direction), discarded and so on? Nupef is > trying to do its part in a dialogue with the BR gov (unfortunately in > pt_br so far). I suspect the SA CS is trying to do the same, and so are > our CS fellows from India. > > Time is quite short, though. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 10/07/2011 07:15 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > So we're commenting on the summary? > > > > Perhaps we should just endorse the Nupef's statement > > ? > > > > Adam > > > > > > > >> The IBSA proposal, in some form, will be issued at the upcoming Summit > >> on 18-19 October. This leaves us about a week if we want to issue a > >> statement ahead of that Summit with our input on the proposal. > >> > >> Should we do this? > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm > >> Project Coordinator > >> Consumers International > >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > >> Malaysia > >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >> > >> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer > >> groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only > >> independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over > >> 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful > >> international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > >> www.consumersinternational.org > >> Twitter @ConsumersInt > >> > >> Read our > >> email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > >> > >> > >> Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" > >> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" > >> Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature > >> > >> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:smime 37.p7s ( / ) (0053DD04) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Sat Oct 8 01:46:17 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 06:46:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to Nobel Peace Prize Recipients! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good notes by Nyangkwe! What do we stand for? On 7 Oct 2011 11:29, "Nyangkwe Agien Aaron" wrote: Congratualtions to the winners. I'll rcommend that they stay in the foot steps of Maathai Waangari and not be stooges of the West as Desmond Tutu, Koffi Annan and Wole Soyinka have proven if we go by their pronouncements on events in Ivory Cooast and Libya. Obama won the peace prize and encouraged the war in Ivory Coast and Libya while Ellen Johnson encouraged the war in Côte d'Ivoire and Libya before winning the prize. A paradox? Aaron On 10/7/11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > To the Women who received the Nobel Peace Prize and ... > - > > > The Nobel Peace Prize 2011Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee, Tawakkul > Karman > The Nobel Peace Prize > 2011Ellen > Johnson > SirleafLeymah > Gbowee > Tawakkul > Karman > [image: Ellen Johnson > Sirleaf]< http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2011/johnson_sirleaf.html > > Photo: A. Cruz/ABr. Creative Commons License Attr. 2.5 Brazil > [image: Leymah > Gbowee]< http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2011/gbowee.html> > Photo: Michael Angelo for Wonderland > [image: Tawakkul > Karman]< http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2011/karman.html> > Photo: Ahmed Jadallah/Scanpix > Ellen Johnson Sirleaf > Leymah Gbowee > Tawakkul Karman > > -- > S... -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscrib... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 05:18:47 2011 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:18:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Final version open letter to e-G20 re: Civil Society Inclusion/non-Inclusion In-Reply-To: <4E8DC8DD.3050507@itforchange.net> References: <642B917C-5716-482B-A842-B04B620EB0E8@ciroap.org> <4E8DC8DD.3050507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hello I support much Parminder. Why a minority, however powerful it may be, must make decisions without inquiring the opinions of others? Why would you want one thing and its opposite? If we are to evolve the concept of democracy, we must stay in that sense. Baudouin 2011/10/6 parminder > ** > I am not happy with the IGC just calling for civil society inclusion. It is > not enough if 20 largest governments along with largely their industry take > important Internet related decisions, even if they include respective civil > societies (or even the broader global civil society) . Internet is global, > and its major decisions should be taken by a globally representative forum. > For this reason, whenever we write such letters for including civil society > in select country confabulations, we should also ask for all countries to > be included. For this purpose appropriate institutional forms must be > evolved. > > I have no basic objection to some country meeting on select issues and > discussing things, However, this kind of thing happening in the context of a > deep global democratic deficit in IG area, and to the extent such meeting > perpetuate this democratic deficit, is what is the problem. We must have a > clear view on this 'problem'. > > Otherwise I find the letter quite good. > > Can we inquire with the drafters of the letter if we can add a sentence on > non inclusion of all countries in such 'global' IG discussions as we call > for inclusion of the civil society. > > parminder > > > > On Thursday 06 October 2011 06:32 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 06/10/2011, at 12:39 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > given the limited info and also time, could we start a consensus call with > some conditional > element? > I mean we ask general support for joining this open letter within IGC as > consensus call and also ask the organizer to modify the wording that > reflects the > latest and accurate info? > > and maybe the details can be left to us, co-coordinators if IGC also > agrees. > > > That's a good plan; members please express your views on whether we > should subscribe to this open letter, subject to minor editing which we will > explore in the meantime. Izumi and I will assess the IGC's position by COB > tomorrow. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 20:38:37 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 12:38:37 +1200 Subject: [governance] Syria Message-ID: Hi! I was reading the CKO daily and learnt about how citizen journalists were being hunted down through Facebook. Is there anyone from Syria on this list. I would be interested. I am also sorry to hear of the killings and unrest: http://paper.li/bevilwooding#!politics It was also interesting to see Russia and China exercise their vetoes. Warm Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 20:40:26 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 12:40:26 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The vetoes are in failed Security Council Resolution SC/10403 On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi! I was reading the CKO daily and learnt about how citizen journalists > were being hunted down through Facebook. Is there anyone from Syria on this > list. I would be interested. I am also sorry to hear of the killings and > unrest: http://paper.li/bevilwooding#!politics > > It was also interesting to see Russia and China exercise their vetoes. > > Warm Regards, > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 21:40:10 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 13:40:10 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some of you may recall that one of things that was discussed at the PrIGF was citizen journalism. There are some interesting developments as far as citizen journalism in Syria is concerned. Apparently, there are citizens who are being hunted down via via facebook. Read about how citizen protesters are turning to facebook to expose spies. The UN Human Rights office reports deaths to have climbed to the 2900 mark, what is even more interesting is the vetoes by the Chinese and Russian Federation.(See: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39955&Cr=syria&Cr1 ) The failed Security Resolution: SC/10403 due to the vetoes by China and Russia. I first saw this story on the CKO daily which you can subscribe to: http://paper.li/bevilwooding#!politics. [You can read the World/Politics column] Also see the abstentions when reading the failed resolution and it is the message that it sends which is far more pronounced and profound. The abstentions are notable. Europe is fortunate in most regards as you have in my view a balanced approach to issues where everyone has a role but there are countries such as Syria and many others who struggle with issues such as privacy, freedom of speech etc. It is interesting to observe the evolution of this phenomena of citizen journalism and the diverse approaches that governments are responding to the situation whether it is the United Kingdom, Iran or Syria. *Death toll from Syrian violence tops 2,900, UN human rights office says * www.un.org The death toll from months of violent clashes between Syrian Government forces a...See More On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > The vetoes are in failed Security Council Resolution SC/10403 > > > On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Hi! I was reading the CKO daily and learnt about how citizen journalists >> were being hunted down through Facebook. Is there anyone from Syria on this >> list. I would be interested. I am also sorry to hear of the killings and >> unrest: http://paper.li/bevilwooding#!politics >> >> It was also interesting to see Russia and China exercise their vetoes. >> >> Warm Regards, >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Oct 9 05:48:50 2011 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 11:48:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:40 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Also see the abstentions when reading the failed resolution and it is the message that it sends which is far more pronounced and profound. including Brazil, India, and South Africa, which also opposed UN sanctions on Iran's "peaceful nuclear program" when the government there was busy hunting down and executing protesters. But want a new UN body to develop global Internet policies and "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting." Then we can have intergovernmental horse trading over all aspects of global IG with Russia, China, et al linking voting deals on issues like their proposed code of conduct for acceptable Internet speech, TLDs, address assignments, standards, etc. to deals on sanctions and other geopolitical items. That should help ensure a stable and open Internet… Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Sun Oct 9 06:20:25 2011 From: nhklein at gmx.net (nhklein) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 17:20:25 +0700 Subject: [governance] Re: Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E917569.6090703@gmx.net> On 10/09/2011 04:48 PM, William Drake wrote: > On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:40 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Also see the abstentions when reading the failed resolution and it is >> the message that it sends which is far more pronounced and profound. > > including Brazil, India, and South Africa, which also opposed UN > sanctions on Iran's "peaceful nuclear program" when the government > there was busy hunting down and executing protesters. But want a new > UN body to develop global Internet policies and "integrate and oversee > the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of > the Internet, including global standards setting." Then we can have > intergovernmental horse trading over all aspects of global IG with > Russia, China, et al linking voting deals on issues like their > proposed code of conduct for acceptable Internet speech, TLDs, address > assignments, standards, etc. to deals on sanctions and other > geopolitical items. That should help ensure a stable and open Internet… > > Bill And some more interesting reading on surveillance by a government - this time from Germany - and how it even goes against the high Constitutional Court of the same country: http://ccc.de/en/updates/2011/staatstrojaner Norbert Klein -- A while ago, I started a new blog: ...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia http://www.thinking21.org/ continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia. Norbert Klein nhklein at gmx.net Phnom Penh / Cambodia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 06:51:44 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:51:44 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Syria In-Reply-To: <4E917569.6090703@gmx.net> References: <4E917569.6090703@gmx.net> Message-ID: > > And some more interesting reading on surveillance by a government - this > time from Germany - and how it even goes against the high Constitutional > Court of the same country: > > http://ccc.de/en/updates/2011/staatstrojaner > > > Norbert Klein > > This raises interesting discussions on whether in our attempt to see a perfected processes and streams of processes which drives us to advocate for an institution to oversee internet governance policy formulation to encourage global participation is worth the threat to vulnerable groups. In the macro view of things, will it be a price that we would be willing to pay. What are other alternatives to improving processes and efficiency? If as in the Syrian example, nations have taken their positions on the matter - in diplomatic speak, even an abstention is a "message" in itself and in the recent example where the Executive Arm in Germany if the contents of the website that Norbert sent are authentic and true defies constitutional principles, how are the rights of the vulnerable protected? Interestingly we can hypothesise and predict/forecast the future by using existing jurisprudence and studying behaviour through signals such as the vetoing of the Security Resolution, the manner in which the UK reacted to the riots, the alleged behaviour of the German Police etc. In the balance of things, particularly rights and responsibilities, there are no easy answers. Sala -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Sun Oct 9 07:04:22 2011 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 13:04:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bill, but doesn't this kind of horse trading already take place anyway, now that the Internet is seen as a strategic component of geopolitical strategies by the "heavy weights" (and increasingly, by mid- and light weights, too)? Ciao, Andrea (speaking on a personal basis) On 10/9/11, William Drake wrote: > On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:40 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Also see the abstentions when reading the failed resolution and it is the >> message that it sends which is far more pronounced and profound. > > including Brazil, India, and South Africa, which also opposed UN sanctions > on Iran's "peaceful nuclear program" when the government there was busy > hunting down and executing protesters. But want a new UN body to develop > global Internet policies and "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible > for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global > standards setting." Then we can have intergovernmental horse trading over > all aspects of global IG with Russia, China, et al linking voting deals on > issues like their proposed code of conduct for acceptable Internet speech, > TLDs, address assignments, standards, etc. to deals on sanctions and other > geopolitical items. That should help ensure a stable and open Internet… > > 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Oct 9 07:49:06 2011 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 13:49:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <743874B8-0E4A-4A5A-A95C-084BA9BD658E@uzh.ch> Hi Andrea On Oct 9, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Bill, > > but doesn't this kind of horse trading already take place anyway, now > that the Internet is seen as a strategic component of geopolitical > strategies by the "heavy weights" (and increasingly, by mid- and light > weights, too)? Not sure, I guess it would depend how we specify what we're talking about. Can you give me examples of governments engaging in geopolitical horse trading across distinct issue-areas in ways that have impacted global IG, like votes on sanctions or agricultural trade or whatever being traded for votes on Internet names, numbers, standards, etc? And whether or not we can identify some, the next question is, would centralizing global IG under a UN intergovernmental body increase the propensity to engage in this, reduce it, or have no impact either way? I believe it would increase it significantly, but would be interested in hearing the counter-argument. Cheers, Bill > > > On 10/9/11, William Drake wrote: >> On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:40 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> Also see the abstentions when reading the failed resolution and it is the >>> message that it sends which is far more pronounced and profound. >> >> including Brazil, India, and South Africa, which also opposed UN sanctions >> on Iran's "peaceful nuclear program" when the government there was busy >> hunting down and executing protesters. But want a new UN body to develop >> global Internet policies and "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible >> for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global >> standards setting." Then we can have intergovernmental horse trading over >> all aspects of global IG with Russia, China, et al linking voting deals on >> issues like their proposed code of conduct for acceptable Internet speech, >> TLDs, address assignments, standards, etc. to deals on sanctions and other >> geopolitical items. That should help ensure a stable and open Internet… >> >> Bill > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 21:03:32 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:03:32 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Syria In-Reply-To: <743874B8-0E4A-4A5A-A95C-084BA9BD658E@uzh.ch> References: <743874B8-0E4A-4A5A-A95C-084BA9BD658E@uzh.ch> Message-ID: More interesting developments in Syria as countries are warned by the Syrian Government: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/world/middleeast/syria-warns-countries-not-to-recognize-opposition.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:49 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Andrea > > On Oct 9, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > > Bill, > > > > but doesn't this kind of horse trading already take place anyway, now > > that the Internet is seen as a strategic component of geopolitical > > strategies by the "heavy weights" (and increasingly, by mid- and light > > weights, too)? > > Not sure, I guess it would depend how we specify what we're talking about. > Can you give me examples of governments engaging in geopolitical horse > trading across distinct issue-areas in ways that have impacted global IG, > like votes on sanctions or agricultural trade or whatever being traded for > votes on Internet names, numbers, standards, etc? And whether or not we can > identify some, the next question is, would centralizing global IG under a UN > intergovernmental body increase the propensity to engage in this, reduce it, > or have no impact either way? I believe it would increase it significantly, > but would be interested in hearing the counter-argument. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > > > > > > On 10/9/11, William Drake wrote: > >> On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:40 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> > >>> Also see the abstentions when reading the failed resolution and it is > the > >>> message that it sends which is far more pronounced and profound. > >> > >> including Brazil, India, and South Africa, which also opposed UN > sanctions > >> on Iran's "peaceful nuclear program" when the government there was busy > >> hunting down and executing protesters. But want a new UN body to > develop > >> global Internet policies and "integrate and oversee the bodies > responsible > >> for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including > global > >> standards setting." Then we can have intergovernmental horse trading > over > >> all aspects of global IG with Russia, China, et al linking voting deals > on > >> issues like their proposed code of conduct for acceptable Internet > speech, > >> TLDs, address assignments, standards, etc. to deals on sanctions and > other > >> geopolitical items. That should help ensure a stable and open Internet… > >> > >> Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 21:09:28 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:09:28 +1200 Subject: [governance] [US reliance on private contractors is seeing a sinister focus on surveillance of citizens instead of defence against cyber attack] Message-ID: Dear All, Should we be surprised? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/09/virtual-secret-state-military-industrial How different is this from when it is sponsored by the State as in the case of the allegations against the German Police's use of "Trojans" ? Surveillance - Private Contractors or State sponsored When is it justified? What are the limits? -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 21:38:47 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:38:47 +1200 Subject: [governance] Free Speech Message-ID: This is a reminder to never take "Free Speech" for granted. There are people in parts of the world who to this day get lashed for doing so. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/09/iranian-lashed-insult-ahmadinejad?CMP=twt_fd -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 21:52:39 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:52:39 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Syria In-Reply-To: References: <743874B8-0E4A-4A5A-A95C-084BA9BD658E@uzh.ch> Message-ID: I discovered an interesting Blog by a Professor who specialises in Middle East Studies on the failed Resolution: http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/?p=12401&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Syriacomment+%28Syria+Comment%29 On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > More interesting developments in Syria as countries are warned by the > Syrian Government: > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/world/middleeast/syria-warns-countries-not-to-recognize-opposition.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto > > On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:49 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Andrea >> >> On Oct 9, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >> >> > Bill, >> > >> > but doesn't this kind of horse trading already take place anyway, now >> > that the Internet is seen as a strategic component of geopolitical >> > strategies by the "heavy weights" (and increasingly, by mid- and light >> > weights, too)? >> >> Not sure, I guess it would depend how we specify what we're talking about. >> Can you give me examples of governments engaging in geopolitical horse >> trading across distinct issue-areas in ways that have impacted global IG, >> like votes on sanctions or agricultural trade or whatever being traded for >> votes on Internet names, numbers, standards, etc? And whether or not we can >> identify some, the next question is, would centralizing global IG under a UN >> intergovernmental body increase the propensity to engage in this, reduce it, >> or have no impact either way? I believe it would increase it significantly, >> but would be interested in hearing the counter-argument. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> >> > >> > >> > On 10/9/11, William Drake wrote: >> >> On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:40 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> >> >>> Also see the abstentions when reading the failed resolution and it is >> the >> >>> message that it sends which is far more pronounced and profound. >> >> >> >> including Brazil, India, and South Africa, which also opposed UN >> sanctions >> >> on Iran's "peaceful nuclear program" when the government there was busy >> >> hunting down and executing protesters. But want a new UN body to >> develop >> >> global Internet policies and "integrate and oversee the bodies >> responsible >> >> for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including >> global >> >> standards setting." Then we can have intergovernmental horse trading >> over >> >> all aspects of global IG with Russia, China, et al linking voting deals >> on >> >> issues like their proposed code of conduct for acceptable Internet >> speech, >> >> TLDs, address assignments, standards, etc. to deals on sanctions and >> other >> >> geopolitical items. That should help ensure a stable and open >> Internet… >> >> >> >> Bill >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 00:57:07 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:57:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Syria In-Reply-To: References: <743874B8-0E4A-4A5A-A95C-084BA9BD658E@uzh.ch> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > I discovered an interesting Blog by a Professor who specialises in Middle > East Studies on the failed Resolution: > http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/?p=12401&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Syriacomment+%28Syria+Comment%29 To me this is more evidence that Bill is correct that intergovernmental-ism is not the way forward in IG, and that CS (including the IGC) should resist at every opportunity. -- 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, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> >> More interesting developments in Syria as countries are warned by the >> Syrian Government: >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/world/middleeast/syria-warns-countries-not-to-recognize-opposition.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto >> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:49 PM, William Drake >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Andrea >>> >>> On Oct 9, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >>> >>> > Bill, >>> > >>> > but doesn't this kind of horse trading already take place anyway, now >>> > that the Internet is seen as a strategic component of geopolitical >>> > strategies by the "heavy weights" (and increasingly, by mid- and light >>> > weights, too)? >>> >>> Not sure, I guess it would depend how we specify what we're talking >>> about.  Can you give me examples of governments engaging in geopolitical >>> horse trading across distinct issue-areas in ways that have impacted global >>> IG, like votes on sanctions or agricultural trade or whatever being traded >>> for votes on Internet names, numbers, standards, etc?  And whether or not we >>> can identify some, the next question is, would centralizing global IG under >>> a UN intergovernmental body increase the propensity to engage in this, >>> reduce it, or have no impact either way?  I believe it would increase it >>> significantly, but would be interested in hearing the counter-argument. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > On 10/9/11, William Drake wrote: >>> >> On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:40 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Also see the abstentions when reading the failed resolution and it is >>> >>> the >>> >>> message that it sends which is far more pronounced and profound. >>> >> >>> >> including Brazil, India, and South Africa, which also opposed UN >>> >> sanctions >>> >> on Iran's "peaceful nuclear program" when the government there was >>> >> busy >>> >> hunting down and executing protesters.  But want a new UN body to >>> >> develop >>> >> global Internet policies and "integrate and oversee the bodies >>> >> responsible >>> >> for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including >>> >> global >>> >> standards setting."  Then we can have intergovernmental horse trading >>> >> over >>> >> all aspects of global IG with Russia, China, et al linking voting >>> >> deals on >>> >> issues like their proposed code of conduct for acceptable Internet >>> >> speech, >>> >> TLDs, address assignments, standards, etc. to deals on sanctions and >>> >> other >>> >> geopolitical items.  That should help ensure a stable and open >>> >> Internet… >>> >> >>> >> Bill >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 00:59:48 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:59:48 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Syria In-Reply-To: References: <743874B8-0E4A-4A5A-A95C-084BA9BD658E@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Precisely why it is imperative that global civil society must be seen to take a stance. On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:57 PM, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > I discovered an interesting Blog by a Professor who specialises in Middle > > East Studies on the failed Resolution: > > > http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/?p=12401&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Syriacomment+%28Syria+Comment%29 > > > To me this is more evidence that Bill is correct that > intergovernmental-ism is not the way forward in IG, and that CS > (including the IGC) should resist at every opportunity. > > -- > 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, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > >> > >> More interesting developments in Syria as countries are warned by the > >> Syrian Government: > >> > >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/world/middleeast/syria-warns-countries-not-to-recognize-opposition.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto > >> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:49 PM, William Drake > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Andrea > >>> > >>> On Oct 9, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > >>> > >>> > Bill, > >>> > > >>> > but doesn't this kind of horse trading already take place anyway, now > >>> > that the Internet is seen as a strategic component of geopolitical > >>> > strategies by the "heavy weights" (and increasingly, by mid- and > light > >>> > weights, too)? > >>> > >>> Not sure, I guess it would depend how we specify what we're talking > >>> about. Can you give me examples of governments engaging in > geopolitical > >>> horse trading across distinct issue-areas in ways that have impacted > global > >>> IG, like votes on sanctions or agricultural trade or whatever being > traded > >>> for votes on Internet names, numbers, standards, etc? And whether or > not we > >>> can identify some, the next question is, would centralizing global IG > under > >>> a UN intergovernmental body increase the propensity to engage in this, > >>> reduce it, or have no impact either way? I believe it would increase > it > >>> significantly, but would be interested in hearing the counter-argument. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On 10/9/11, William Drake wrote: > >>> >> On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:40 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >>> Also see the abstentions when reading the failed resolution and it > is > >>> >>> the > >>> >>> message that it sends which is far more pronounced and profound. > >>> >> > >>> >> including Brazil, India, and South Africa, which also opposed UN > >>> >> sanctions > >>> >> on Iran's "peaceful nuclear program" when the government there was > >>> >> busy > >>> >> hunting down and executing protesters. But want a new UN body to > >>> >> develop > >>> >> global Internet policies and "integrate and oversee the bodies > >>> >> responsible > >>> >> for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including > >>> >> global > >>> >> standards setting." Then we can have intergovernmental horse > trading > >>> >> over > >>> >> all aspects of global IG with Russia, China, et al linking voting > >>> >> deals on > >>> >> issues like their proposed code of conduct for acceptable Internet > >>> >> speech, > >>> >> TLDs, address assignments, standards, etc. to deals on sanctions and > >>> >> other > >>> >> geopolitical items. That should help ensure a stable and open > >>> >> Internet… > >>> >> > >>> >> Bill > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 02:28:39 2011 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:28:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] Secret Orders Target Email: WikiLeaks Backer's Information Sought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E929097.6030706@gmail.com> [affected party not party to the case?] OCTOBER 10, 2011 Secret Orders Target Email WikiLeaks Backer's Information Sought By JULIA ANGWIN The U.S. government has obtained a controversial type of secret court order to force Google Inc. and small Internet provider Sonic.net Inc. to turn over information from the email accounts of WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Appelbaum, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Sonic said it fought the government's order and lost, and was forced to turn over information. Challenging the order was "rather expensive, but we felt it was the right thing to do," said Sonic's chief executive, Dane Jasper. The government's request included the email addresses of people Mr. Appelbaum corresponded with the past two years, but not the full emails. Both Google and Sonic pressed for the right to inform Mr. Appelbaum of the secret court orders, according to people familiar with the investigation. Google declined to comment. Mr. Appelbaum, 28 years old, hasn't been charged with wrongdoing. The court clashes in the WikiLeaks case provide a rare public window into the growing debate over a federal law that lets the government secretly obtain information from people's email and cellphones without a search warrant. Several court decisions have questioned whether the law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. WikiLeaks is a publisher of documents that people can submit anonymously. After WikiLeaks released a trove of classified government diplomatic cables last year, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the U.S. was pursuing an "active criminal investigation" of WikiLeaks. Passed in 1986, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act is older than the World Wide Web, which was dreamed up in 1989. A coalition of technology companies—including Google, Microsoft Corp. and AT&T Corp.—is lobbying Congress to update the law to require search warrants in more digital investigations. The law was designed to give the same protections to electronic communications that were already in place for phone calls and regular mail. But it didn't envision a time when cellphones transmitted locations and people stored important documents on remote services, such as Gmail, rather than on their own computers. Law enforcement uses the law to obtain some emails, cellphone-location records and other digital documents without getting a search warrant or showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. Instead the law sets a lower bar: The government must show only "reasonable grounds" that the records would be "relevant and material" to an investigation. As a result, it can be easier for law-enforcement officers to see a person's email information than it is to see their postal mail. Another significant difference: A person whose email is inspected this way often never knows a search was conducted. That's because court orders under the 1986 law are almost always sealed, and the Internet provider is generally prohibited from notifying the customer whose data is searched. By contrast, search warrants are generally delivered to people whose property is being searched. The secrecy makes it difficult to determine how often such court orders are used. Anecdotal data suggest that digital searches are becoming common. In 2009, Google began disclosing the volume of requests for user data it received from the U.S. government. In the six months ending Dec. 31, Google said it received 4,601 requests and complied with 94% of them. The data include all types of requests, including search warrants, subpoenas and requests under the 1986 law. At a Senate hearing in April on whether the 1986 law needs updating, Associate Deputy Attorney General James A. Baker cautioned Congress "that raising the standard for obtaining information under ECPA may substantially slow criminal and national security investigations." In May, the ECPA's author, U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), said the original law is "significantly outdated and outpaced by rapid changes in technology." He introduced a bill adopting many of the recommendations of the technology coalition lobbying for changes to the law. Some federal courts have questioned the law's constitutionality. In a landmark case in December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the government violated the Fourth Amendment when it obtained 27,000 emails without a search warrant. "The police may not storm the post office and intercept a letter, and they are likewise forbidden from using the phone system to make a clandestine recording of a telephone call—unless they get a warrant," Judge Danny Boggs wrote in the 98-page opinion. "It only stands to reason that, if government agents compel an [Internet service provider] to surrender the contents of a subscriber's emails, those agents have thereby conducted a Fourth Amendment search." In August, the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York over-ruled a government request to obtain cellphone location records without a warrant, calling it "Orwellian." Judge Nicholas Garaufis wrote: "It is time that the courts begin to address whether revolutionary changes in technology require changes to existing Fourth Amendment doctrine." The government has appealed. The WikiLeaks case became a test bed for the law's interpretation earlier this year when Twitter fought a court order to turn over records from the accounts of WikiLeaks supporters including Mr. Appelbaum. Mr. Applebaum is a developer for the Tor Project Inc., a Walpole, Mass., nonprofit that provides free tools that help people maintain their anonymity online. Tor's tools are often used by people living in countries where Internet traffic is monitored by the government. Tor obtains some of its funding from the U.S. government. Mr. Appelbaum has also volunteered for WikiLeaks, which recommends people use Tor's tools to protect their identities when submitting documents to its website. In April 2010, Mr. Appelbaum's involvement in WikiLeaks was inadvertently disclosed publicly in a blog post on the website of the Committee to Protect Journalists. The reporter, Danny O'Brien, said Mr. Appelbaum had thought he was speaking anonymously. Mr. O'Brien said he later offered to remove Mr. Appelbaum's name from the post. After the blog post appeared, Mr. Appelbaum became a public advocate for WikiLeaks. In June, he gave a speech at a Northern California technology camp where he called WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange one of the "biggest inspirations in my life." On Dec. 14, the U.S. Department of Justice obtained a court order for information from the Twitter account of people including Mr. Appelbaum and WikiLeaks supporters Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of the Icelandic parliament, and Rop Gonggrijp, a Dutch computer programmer. Neither has been charged with wrongdoing. The order sought the "Internet protocol," or IP, addresses of the devices from which people logged into their accounts. An IP address is a unique number assigned to a device connected to the Internet. The order also sought the email addresses of the people with whom those accounts communicated. The order was filed under seal, but Twitter successfully won from the court the right to notify the subscribers whose information was sought. On Jan. 26, attorneys for Mr. Appelbaum, Mr. Gonggrijp and Ms. Jonsdottir jointly filed a motion to vacate the court order. They argued, among other things, that because IP addresses can be used to locate a person in "specific geographic destinations," it constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment and thus required a warrant. The government argued that IP addresses don't reveal precise location and are more akin to phone numbers. At a Feb. 15 hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney John S. Davis said, "this is a standard… investigative measure that is used in criminal investigations every day of the year all over this country." On March 11, U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan denied the WikiLeaks supporters' motion. They have appealed. Twitter hasn't turned over information from the accounts of Mr. Appelbaum, Ms. Jonsdottir and Mr. Gonggrijp, according to people familiar with the investigation. The court orders reviewed by the Journal seek the same type of information that Twitter was asked to turn over. The secret Google order is dated Jan. 4 and directs the search giant to hand over the IP address from which Mr. Appelbaum logged into his gmail.com account and the email and IP addresses of the users with whom he communicated dating back to Nov. 1, 2009. It isn't clear whether Google fought the order or turned over documents. The secret Sonic order is dated April 15 and directs Sonic to turn over the same type of information from Mr. Appelbaum's email account dating back to Nov. 1, 2009. On Aug. 31, the court agreed to lift the seal on the Sonic order to provide Mr. Appelbaum a copy of it. Sonic Chief Executive Mr. Jasper said the company also sought to unseal the rest of its legal filings but that request "came back virtually entirely denied." -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 10 03:33:33 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:33:33 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Nominees for next co-coordinator position In-Reply-To: <290EA09D-040C-4EF5-9FE9-444E563217DB@ciroap.org> References: <290EA09D-040C-4EF5-9FE9-444E563217DB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4E929FCD.6060100@ciroap.org> I am about to send out the ballots, but so far I only have one election statement (from Sonigitu Ekpe). If any of the other candidates (Asif Kabani, Imran Ahmed Shah, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) would like to make a statement, please send it to me or the list within the next 24 hours. Any late nominations may also be sent within that period. Thanks. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 04:05:43 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:05:43 +1200 Subject: [governance] Secret Orders Target Email: WikiLeaks Backer's Information Sought In-Reply-To: <4E929097.6030706@gmail.com> References: <4E929097.6030706@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is interesting. I would much rather see Governments serve Orders rather than take the information arbitrarily through the use of Trojans. I would rather see processes for extraction of information rather than forced extractions. Both are not good but which one would I rather settle for? Process and due process On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > [affected party not party to the case?] > > > OCTOBER 10, 2011 > Secret Orders Target Email > WikiLeaks Backer's Information Sought > By JULIA ANGWIN > The U.S. government has obtained a controversial type of secret court > order to force Google Inc. and small Internet provider Sonic.net Inc. > to turn over information from the email accounts of WikiLeaks > volunteer Jacob Appelbaum, according to documents reviewed by The Wall > Street Journal. > Sonic said it fought the government's order and lost, and was forced > to turn over information. Challenging the order was "rather expensive, > but we felt it was the right thing to do," said Sonic's chief > executive, Dane Jasper. The government's request included the email > addresses of people Mr. Appelbaum corresponded with the past two > years, but not the full emails. > Both Google and Sonic pressed for the right to inform Mr. Appelbaum of > the secret court orders, according to people familiar with the > investigation. Google declined to comment. Mr. Appelbaum, 28 years > old, hasn't been charged with wrongdoing. > The court clashes in the WikiLeaks case provide a rare public window > into the growing debate over a federal law that lets the government > secretly obtain information from people's email and cellphones without > a search warrant. Several court decisions have questioned whether the > law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, violates the U.S. > Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable > searches and seizures. > WikiLeaks is a publisher of documents that people can submit > anonymously. After WikiLeaks released a trove of classified government > diplomatic cables last year, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said > the U.S. was pursuing an "active criminal investigation" of WikiLeaks. > Passed in 1986, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act is older > than the World Wide Web, which was dreamed up in 1989. A coalition of > technology companies—including Google, Microsoft Corp. and AT&T > Corp.—is lobbying Congress to update the law to require search > warrants in more digital investigations. > The law was designed to give the same protections to electronic > communications that were already in place for phone calls and regular > mail. But it didn't envision a time when cellphones transmitted > locations and people stored important documents on remote services, > such as Gmail, rather than on their own computers. > Law enforcement uses the law to obtain some emails, cellphone-location > records and other digital documents without getting a search warrant > or showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. Instead the > law sets a lower bar: The government must show only "reasonable > grounds" that the records would be "relevant and material" to an > investigation. > As a result, it can be easier for law-enforcement officers to see a > person's email information than it is to see their postal mail. > Another significant difference: A person whose email is inspected this > way often never knows a search was conducted. That's because court > orders under the 1986 law are almost always sealed, and the Internet > provider is generally prohibited from notifying the customer whose > data is searched. By contrast, search warrants are generally delivered > to people whose property is being searched. > The secrecy makes it difficult to determine how often such court > orders are used. Anecdotal data suggest that digital searches are > becoming common. > In 2009, Google began disclosing the volume of requests for user data > it received from the U.S. government. In the six months ending Dec. > 31, Google said it received 4,601 requests and complied with 94% of > them. The data include all types of requests, including search > warrants, subpoenas and requests under the 1986 law. > At a Senate hearing in April on whether the 1986 law needs updating, > Associate Deputy Attorney General James A. Baker cautioned Congress > "that raising the standard for obtaining information under ECPA may > substantially slow criminal and national security investigations." > In May, the ECPA's author, U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), said the > original law is "significantly outdated and outpaced by rapid changes > in technology." He introduced a bill adopting many of the > recommendations of the technology coalition lobbying for changes to > the law. > Some federal courts have questioned the law's constitutionality. In a > landmark case in December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth > Circuit ruled that the government violated the Fourth Amendment when > it obtained 27,000 emails without a search warrant. > "The police may not storm the post office and intercept a letter, and > they are likewise forbidden from using the phone system to make a > clandestine recording of a telephone call—unless they get a warrant," > Judge Danny Boggs wrote in the 98-page opinion. "It only stands to > reason that, if government agents compel an [Internet service > provider] to surrender the contents of a subscriber's emails, those > agents have thereby conducted a Fourth Amendment search." > In August, the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York > over-ruled a government request to obtain cellphone location records > without a warrant, calling it "Orwellian." Judge Nicholas Garaufis > wrote: "It is time that the courts begin to address whether > revolutionary changes in technology require changes to existing Fourth > Amendment doctrine." The government has appealed. > The WikiLeaks case became a test bed for the law's interpretation > earlier this year when Twitter fought a court order to turn over > records from the accounts of WikiLeaks supporters including Mr. > Appelbaum. > Mr. Applebaum is a developer for the Tor Project Inc., a Walpole, > Mass., nonprofit that provides free tools that help people maintain > their anonymity online. Tor's tools are often used by people living in > countries where Internet traffic is monitored by the government. Tor > obtains some of its funding from the U.S. government. > Mr. Appelbaum has also volunteered for WikiLeaks, which recommends > people use Tor's tools to protect their identities when submitting > documents to its website. In April 2010, Mr. Appelbaum's involvement > in WikiLeaks was inadvertently disclosed publicly in a blog post on > the website of the Committee to Protect Journalists. The reporter, > Danny O'Brien, said Mr. Appelbaum had thought he was speaking > anonymously. Mr. O'Brien said he later offered to remove Mr. > Appelbaum's name from the post. > After the blog post appeared, Mr. Appelbaum became a public advocate > for WikiLeaks. In June, he gave a speech at a Northern California > technology camp where he called WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange one > of the "biggest inspirations in my life." > On Dec. 14, the U.S. Department of Justice obtained a court order for > information from the Twitter account of people including Mr. Appelbaum > and WikiLeaks supporters Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of the > Icelandic parliament, and Rop Gonggrijp, a Dutch computer programmer. > Neither has been charged with wrongdoing. > The order sought the "Internet protocol," or IP, addresses of the > devices from which people logged into their accounts. An IP address is > a unique number assigned to a device connected to the Internet. > The order also sought the email addresses of the people with whom > those accounts communicated. The order was filed under seal, but > Twitter successfully won from the court the right to notify the > subscribers whose information was sought. > On Jan. 26, attorneys for Mr. Appelbaum, Mr. Gonggrijp and Ms. > Jonsdottir jointly filed a motion to vacate the court order. They > argued, among other things, that because IP addresses can be used to > locate a person in "specific geographic destinations," it constituted > a search under the Fourth Amendment and thus required a warrant. > The government argued that IP addresses don't reveal precise location > and are more akin to phone numbers. At a Feb. 15 hearing, Assistant > U.S. Attorney John S. Davis said, "this is a standard… investigative > measure that is used in criminal investigations every day of the year > all over this country." > On March 11, U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan denied the > WikiLeaks supporters' motion. They have appealed. > Twitter hasn't turned over information from the accounts of Mr. > Appelbaum, Ms. Jonsdottir and Mr. Gonggrijp, according to people > familiar with the investigation. > The court orders reviewed by the Journal seek the same type of > information that Twitter was asked to turn over. The secret Google > order is dated Jan. 4 and directs the search giant to hand over the IP > address from which Mr. Appelbaum logged into his gmail.com account and > the email and IP addresses of the users with whom he communicated > dating back to Nov. 1, 2009. It isn't clear whether Google fought the > order or turned over documents. > The secret Sonic order is dated April 15 and directs Sonic to turn > over the same type of information from Mr. Appelbaum's email account > dating back to Nov. 1, 2009. > On Aug. 31, the court agreed to lift the seal on the Sonic order to > provide Mr. Appelbaum a copy of it. Sonic Chief Executive Mr. Jasper > said the company also sought to unseal the rest of its legal filings > but that request "came back virtually entirely denied." > -- > > > ______________________________**______________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Oct 10 05:49:01 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:49:01 +0800 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> <4E8F018D.9050809@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4E92BF8D.2050004@ciroap.org> On 08/10/11 10:14, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Hi guys, > > I edited my earlier comments, here is the revised version: I like this, though probably we can lose the UN-style wording of the preamble (I wrote my first IGC statement in the same way, but others pointed out that as CS we don't need to imitate the intergovernmental style). > *Acknowledging* that the WGIG in its 2005 report concluded that there > is merit in improving institutional coordination as well as > coordination among all stakeholders at the regional, subregional and > national levels, the IGC believes that this does not justify the > creation of an institution[s1] > ; This may be too strong? Last year, we wrote in a consensus statement that "It is imperative that this [governance] deficit continue to be addressed through the existing institutions, and where appropriate through new institutional developments that comply with the accepted process criteria of being open, accountable, transparent, democratic and inclusive." > [Suggestion to IGC: We can hold a white monkey survey and take a vote > on the issue – although we should be prepared for the results] > I agree that this could be helpful, so I propose to add an optional section about these issues to the upcoming coordinator election poll, after the vote for coordinator, so as not to bother people with multiple polls in a short space of time. This will make it easier to draft a short statement that, as Carlos said, is proactive in suggesting improvements rather than just harping on the negatives of the IBSA proposal. Even if we miss the Summit dates, it will be useful to have this up our sleeves for later. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From kabani at isd-rc.org Mon Oct 10 07:47:53 2011 From: kabani at isd-rc.org (Asif Kabani) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:47:53 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Nominees for next co-coordinator position In-Reply-To: <4E929FCD.6060100@ciroap.org> References: <290EA09D-040C-4EF5-9FE9-444E563217DB@ciroap.org> <4E929FCD.6060100@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Jaremy and Colleagues, Please find here the statement Dear Friends, Greetings I would like to take this opportunity be elected as coordinator at Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), to serve the IGC community and promote IGC mission. Kindly, note that I have 10-15 years of direct experience and education in Internet Governance (IG) and working with Civil Society in developing world, working with Donors and Government, educated by Diplo Foundation in Internet Governance and ISOC as Next Generation Leader for IG. I see that next 12-24 months, will be very crucial for IGC and Civil Society in context of IGF between UN and stakeholders of IGF, including IGC, in appointment if Chair and Coordinator of IGF, the secondly is the ICANN new developments in context of internet governance. Here I would like to bring my rich experience if IG working with Government, Donors, CSO and Academic, to the crucial future ahead and make IGC a organization with VOICE and MUSCLE in public policy in Internet Governance and Development with all the member’s of IGC. Perhaps this is the time IGC should have coordinators, like myself whom have direct influence and lobbying in UN and government in policy, provision, production, and finance to Internet Governance. IGC must develop a way forward and best practices for civil society to come forward and interact with stakeholder, donors, private sector, academic and Government, Since, I have direct experience working with all above especially, the civil society, UN and Government in last 10+ year. I strongly believe that IGC should now become the most important Voice at the WSIS 2015 and other international forums. The IGC must have ultimate and clear position of caucus in all public policy forms in ICANN, IGF, etc. Since I have worked at IGF, at UNOG and understand how diplomacy is done this will be a assets to IGC. Also note that I have participate in various National and International Forums, like IEEE, IGFs, ICANN and ISOC meetings for last several years, this rich experience will also come handy to IGC and its community. IGC must raise the voices strongly and act together, to lobby governments and private sector why they should work together with us on equal together. We all as members will work promote the interests of the developing parts of the world and will make IGC a pro-active organization is we need we will make various committees on strategy development, technical committee, etc and forums so members with particular internet can share input and make public policy research. We will all work together and will IGC as organization that next generations will remember it for centuries to come. My name if Asif Kabani, I have MBA in NGO Management, MBA in Marketing and IT, MSc in Development Studies from Wye college University of London, and Post Graduate in Internet Governance in 2007 from Diplo Foundation and Next Generation Leadership (NGL) in 2010-2011 Diplo-ISOC. I have worked with UN System in various countries, including United Nations office in Geneva at IGF thanks to Diplo, traveled to Asia, Europe, and other developed and developing countries for my work with Civil Society; I have very good communication skills with understanding of values and cultures. Review the facts that if I am selected as coordinator, I will serve the whole caucus and each and every member of the community, as one team and willing to share, facilitate, listen and coordinate as the member. I also like to say that at least one of the co-coordinator and members of this caucus be selected at MAG for IGF, UN / International forms and Government advisory, where policy-making is done. This will bring IGC stakeholder input in Regional and National Government in Public Policy with pro-active members of IGC, This way, the linkage between caucus with stakeholders will promote, and strengthened. Your valuable opinions and suggestions are most welcome. It's great to have a colleagues who will *support by voting* me as co-cordinator of IGC. Thank you all for your kindness. Please accept my sincere gratitude. *Asif Kabani* Skype: kabaniasif Email: kabana.asif at gmail.com On 10 October 2011 12:33, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > ** > I am about to send out the ballots, but so far I only have one election > statement (from Sonigitu Ekpe). If any of the other candidates (Asif > Kabani, Imran Ahmed Shah, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) would like to make a > statement, please send it to me or the list within the next 24 hours. Any > late nominations may also be sent within that period. > > Thanks. > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -- Asif Kabani Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Oct 10 08:04:13 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:04:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E92DF3D.1080608@cafonso.ca> Hmmm, this reminds me of USA's silence when its pawns, Bahrein's dictatorship, arrests and condemns physicians and nurses, or when its other pawns, the Saudi Arabian dictatorship... but these are not issues for this list, I guess. The BR government has already made clear in several instances that the document is a *draft*, that it is discussing it with Brazilian civil society (and I can testify it is) and that it will be rewritten. Romulo, the Itamaraty person chiefly involved in this process, is open to dialogue with anyone, Brazilian or not, as Bill himself can testify. BTW, this trilateral forum called IBSA is *not* focused on Internet governance (this is just a small part of a much larger effort since at least 2003, when even the talk of IG was non-existent), and there is a complex set of discussions on a wide array of themes for collaboration in process. Also, the ways of civil society participation in government policy is not uniform in the three countries, each government has its own views, and this is a joint proposal. So be it, central countries' folks try to sit on their own tails while bashing us for having our tails. fraternal regards --c.a. On 10/09/2011 06:48 AM, William Drake wrote: > On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:40 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Also see the abstentions when reading the failed resolution and it is >> the message that it sends which is far more pronounced and profound. > > including Brazil, India, and South Africa, which also opposed UN > sanctions on Iran's "peaceful nuclear program" when the government there > was busy hunting down and executing protesters. But want a new UN body > to develop global Internet policies and "integrate and oversee the > bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the > Internet, including global standards setting." Then we can have > intergovernmental horse trading over all aspects of global IG with > Russia, China, et al linking voting deals on issues like their proposed > code of conduct for acceptable Internet speech, TLDs, address > assignments, standards, etc. to deals on sanctions and other > geopolitical items. That should help ensure a stable and open Internet… > > Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 09:29:29 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:29:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <4E92BF8D.2050004@ciroap.org> References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> <4E8F018D.9050809@cafonso.ca> <4E92BF8D.2050004@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear all, Sorry for joining the discussion late, but I tried to find out what will be forwarded to IBSA summit and in what status. As far as I could understand, from the Brazilian gov: a) the seminar will be acknowledged in the summit b) there will be a proposal that CS from IBSA participates fully on the formulation of any proposal of institutional change/mechanism and c) it will be proposed that wider discussions with CS from the three countries is carried out to improve IBSA proposal before any further step is taken. In any case, I think that it does not diminishes the importance of inputs from IGC, especially if these inputs are aimed at concreteley improving IBSA´s set of recommendations. In my personal view, there is no other country/group of countries that is being more open to dialogue about their position on institutional changes than IBSA, so concrete proposals that the three countries could take on board would be more useful than making a statement to solely be against X, Y or Z. Best wishes, Marília On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > ** > On 08/10/11 10:14, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I edited my earlier comments, here is the revised version: > > > I like this, though probably we can lose the UN-style wording of the > preamble (I wrote my first IGC statement in the same way, but others pointed > out that as CS we don't need to imitate the intergovernmental style). > > > *Acknowledging* that the WGIG in its 2005 report concluded that there is > merit in improving institutional coordination as well as coordination among > all stakeholders at the regional, subregional and national levels, the IGC > believes that this does not justify the creation of an institution[s1] ; > > > This may be too strong? Last year, we wrote in a consensus statement that > "It is imperative that this [governance] deficit continue to be addressed > through the existing institutions, and where appropriate through new > institutional developments that comply with the accepted process criteria of > being open, accountable, transparent, democratic and inclusive." > > > [Suggestion to IGC: We can hold a white monkey survey and take a vote on > the issue – although we should be prepared for the results] > > > I agree that this could be helpful, so I propose to add an optional section > about these issues to the upcoming coordinator election poll, after the vote > for coordinator, so as not to bother people with multiple polls in a short > space of time. This will make it easier to draft a short statement that, as > Carlos said, is proactive in suggesting improvements rather than just > harping on the negatives of the IBSA proposal. Even if we miss the Summit > dates, it will be useful to have this up our sleeves for later. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 10:00:13 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:00:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> <4E8F018D.9050809@cafonso.ca> <4E92BF8D.2050004@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Interesting suggestions for a statement are being discussed. I hope to be able to comment on Sala´s e-mail soon. I just would like to reinforce that, as Jeremy mentioned, IGC has produced a statememt about enhanced cooperation. I could find it online here: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan043237.pdf and I take the opportunity to ask Jeremy to "pull" all our previous statements to the current website, as they are one of the most important elements of our institutional memory. On that statement IGC pointed out four general options about EC. The discussion to reach this 4 options was a very rich one, and I believe that any position from IGC about the institutional aspect of EC should build on that 4 options, not start from scratch. I also take the opportunity to ask for more clarification about the suggestion for the poll, as I did not understand what would be the topics covered. Best wishes, Marília On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > Sorry for joining the discussion late, but I tried to find out what will be > forwarded to IBSA summit and in what status. As far as I could understand, > from the Brazilian gov: a) the seminar will be acknowledged in the summit b) > there will be a proposal that CS from IBSA participates fully on the > formulation of any proposal of institutional change/mechanism and c) it will > be proposed that wider discussions with CS from the three countries is > carried out to improve IBSA proposal before any further step is taken. > > In any case, I think that it does not diminishes the importance of inputs > from IGC, especially if these inputs are aimed at concreteley improving > IBSA´s set of recommendations. In my personal view, there is no other > country/group of countries that is being more open to dialogue about their > position on institutional changes than IBSA, so concrete proposals that the > three countries could take on board would be more useful than making a > statement to solely be against X, Y or Z. > > Best wishes, > > Marília > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> ** >> On 08/10/11 10:14, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Hi guys, >> >> I edited my earlier comments, here is the revised version: >> >> >> I like this, though probably we can lose the UN-style wording of the >> preamble (I wrote my first IGC statement in the same way, but others pointed >> out that as CS we don't need to imitate the intergovernmental style). >> >> >> *Acknowledging* that the WGIG in its 2005 report concluded that there is >> merit in improving institutional coordination as well as coordination among >> all stakeholders at the regional, subregional and national levels, the IGC >> believes that this does not justify the creation of an institution[s1] ; >> >> >> This may be too strong? Last year, we wrote in a consensus statement that >> "It is imperative that this [governance] deficit continue to be addressed >> through the existing institutions, and where appropriate through new >> institutional developments that comply with the accepted process criteria of >> being open, accountable, transparent, democratic and inclusive." >> >> >> [Suggestion to IGC: We can hold a white monkey survey and take a vote on >> the issue – although we should be prepared for the results] >> >> >> I agree that this could be helpful, so I propose to add an optional >> section about these issues to the upcoming coordinator election poll, after >> the vote for coordinator, so as not to bother people with multiple polls in >> a short space of time. This will make it easier to draft a short statement >> that, as Carlos said, is proactive in suggesting improvements rather than >> just harping on the negatives of the IBSA proposal. Even if we miss the >> Summit dates, it will be useful to have this up our sleeves for later. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator* >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups >> that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and >> authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations >> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help >> protect and empower consumers everywhere. >> >> *www.consumersinternational.org* >> *Twitter @ConsumersInt * >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Oct 10 10:41:15 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:41:15 +0800 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> <4E8F018D.9050809@cafonso.ca> <4E92BF8D.2050004@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 10/10/2011, at 10:00 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I just would like to reinforce that, as Jeremy mentioned, IGC has produced a statememt about enhanced cooperation. I could find it online here: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan043237.pdf and I take the opportunity to ask Jeremy to "pull" all our previous statements to the current website, as they are one of the most important elements of our institutional memory. It's also on our Statements page (http://www.igcaucus.org/statements) at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/43. > On that statement IGC pointed out four general options about EC. The discussion to reach this 4 options was a very rich one, and I believe that any position from IGC about the institutional aspect of EC should build on that 4 options, not start from scratch. > > I also take the opportunity to ask for more clarification about the suggestion for the poll, as I did not understand what would be the topics covered. As it stands in draft, I have pulled out each of the substantive paragraphs of the IBSA summary and asked for the respondent to state how strongly they agree/disagree, and then I have asked "If there is no new body, then what else do you suggest" and given the following options (which draw on, but don't replicate, those from our EC submission), plus an "Other" option for respondents to enter their own suggestion: No institutional change, no global norm-setting in areas not covered by existing institutions, improved consultation in areas that are. Institutional improvements to the IGF, to enable it to produce policy options which policy makers (including at the national level) can use. Institutional change outside of the UN system, such as a voluntary network of policy makers that would consult with all stakeholders. More options are welcome... -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2212 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 11:40:54 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:40:54 -0300 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> <4E8F018D.9050809@cafonso.ca> <4E92BF8D.2050004@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy and all, I would like to make some observations on the idea of making a poll. - Usually, voting comes right after a time of discussion, like elections come after a campaign. This gives the range of ideas an opportunity to be heard and debated and it makes the options (and the arguments behind them) fresh in the memories of voters. As far as I remember, the last in depth discussion about EC took place about a year ago (under the thread named second draft statement on enhanced cooperation). It does not look like a good procedure to call a vote on those options now, without a new round of dicussions on the list. - Taking the risk to be misinterpreted, I need to express that I find that, the way it is proposed, this approach will probably lead to unintended results, mainly because: a) The political timing. After the reaction to the proposal advanced by China and Russia, the mood is very much "let´s not change anything". I know I will make a bad comparison, but it reminds me of initiatives that call on a referendum to forbid abortion right after a baby has been abandoned or killed. Timing means much in politics and one may wonder why we would be pushing for an internal poll now, so many months after our substative discussion. b) The political use that can be made about this poll, if it is conducted the way it has been proposed. The governments themselves (without mentioning CS) have all said that IBSA document needs improvement. Even people that could support the general idea in some paragraphs will not support it the way it is. But the external interpretations about CS statement will certainly not take these nuances and the draft nature of the doc into account. CS statement will be very exploitable and I think we should avoid being politically used by other groups. c) using IBSA´s draft document as a way to find our position on EC is a political decision with implications. We are not doing the same with more concrete documents on the same matter, that are still pretty much under-discussed, such as the ones from the US and the Commission. Politically, this means that all attention will continue to be on IBSA, while these other proposals continue to move forward, more or less unhindered. Lastly, I believe many of our members are still in "post-IGF rest" and the activity on the list has diminished. I think it is not a good moment to call on a poll on such an important issue, that needs dicussion. My proposal would be to hang on to the idea of the poll (which is a good one after all), but to conduct it in 1 or 2 months, raising the discussion on the list first, and doing that based on IGC´s previous statement, and not on a concrete proposal by any country/group. Of course, that does not mean that we should not make critics/suggestions to IBSA doc, to be sent to the summit. Best wishes, Marília On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 10/10/2011, at 10:00 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > I just would like to reinforce that, as Jeremy mentioned, IGC has produced > a statememt about enhanced cooperation. I could find it online here: > http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan043237.pdf > and I take the opportunity to ask Jeremy to "pull" all our previous > statements to the current website, as they are one of the most important > elements of our institutional memory. > > > It's also on our Statements page (http://www.igcaucus.org/statements) at > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/43. > > On that statement IGC pointed out four general options about EC. The > discussion to reach this 4 options was a very rich one, and I believe that > any position from IGC about the institutional aspect of EC should build on > that 4 options, not start from scratch. > > I also take the opportunity to ask for more clarification about the > suggestion for the poll, as I did not understand what would be the topics > covered. > > > As it stands in draft, I have pulled out each of the substantive paragraphs > of the IBSA summary and asked for the respondent to state how strongly they > agree/disagree, and then I have asked "If there is no new body, then what > else do you suggest" and given the following options (which draw on, but > don't replicate, those from our EC submission), plus an "Other" option for > respondents to enter their own suggestion: > > 1. No institutional change, no global norm-setting in areas not covered > by existing institutions, improved consultation in areas that are. > 2. Institutional improvements to the IGF, to enable it to produce > policy options which policy makers (including at the national level) can > use. > 3. Institutional change outside of the UN system, such as a voluntary > network of policy makers that would consult with all stakeholders. > > More options are welcome... > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 10 13:01:57 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:31:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> <4E8F018D.9050809@cafonso.ca> <4E92BF8D.2050004@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <9effbf3ad119ac711b2cc5161a61030c.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> > > As it stands in draft, I have pulled out each of the substantive > paragraphs of the IBSA summary and asked for the respondent to state how > strongly they agree/disagree, and then I have asked "If there is no new > body, then what else do you suggest" and given the following options > (which draw on, but don't replicate, those from our EC submission), plus > an "Other" option for respondents to enter their own suggestion: > No institutional change, no global norm-setting in areas not covered by > existing institutions, improved consultation in areas that are. > Institutional improvements to the IGF, to enable it to produce policy > options which policy makers (including at the national level) can use. > Institutional change outside of the UN system, such as a voluntary network > of policy makers that would consult with all stakeholders. > More options are welcome... This subject, first of all, deserves a rich and involved open discussion. I am very uncomfortable about directly going to poll with such unclear, and perhaps leading, set of options. The topic is simply too important and central to IGC's work for that. Perhaps civil society's biggest claim to legitimacy is through the channels and processes of deliberative democracy. Questions will have to be asked and answered about this important issue in this forum before we proceed to taking a sense of the IGC's collective opinion. I am still in Africa and dont much regular access to the Internet, but very much look forward to an engaged discussion on this subject. parminder > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent > and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member > organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international > movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 13:23:49 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:23:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> + 1 M -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 8:41 AM To: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? Dear Jeremy and all, I would like to make some observations on the idea of making a poll. - Usually, voting comes right after a time of discussion, like elections come after a campaign. This gives the range of ideas an opportunity to be heard and debated and it makes the options (and the arguments behind them) fresh in the memories of voters. As far as I remember, the last in depth discussion about EC took place about a year ago (under the thread named second draft statement on enhanced cooperation). It does not look like a good procedure to call a vote on those options now, without a new round of dicussions on the list. - Taking the risk to be misinterpreted, I need to express that I find that, the way it is proposed, this approach will probably lead to unintended results, mainly because: a) The political timing. After the reaction to the proposal advanced by China and Russia, the mood is very much "let´s not change anything". I know I will make a bad comparison, but it reminds me of initiatives that call on a referendum to forbid abortion right after a baby has been abandoned or killed. Timing means much in politics and one may wonder why we would be pushing for an internal poll now, so many months after our substative discussion. b) The political use that can be made about this poll, if it is conducted the way it has been proposed. The governments themselves (without mentioning CS) have all said that IBSA document needs improvement. Even people that could support the general idea in some paragraphs will not support it the way it is. But the external interpretations about CS statement will certainly not take these nuances and the draft nature of the doc into account. CS statement will be very exploitable and I think we should avoid being politically used by other groups. c) using IBSA´s draft document as a way to find our position on EC is a political decision with implications. We are not doing the same with more concrete documents on the same matter, that are still pretty much under-discussed, such as the ones from the US and the Commission. Politically, this means that all attention will continue to be on IBSA, while these other proposals continue to move forward, more or less unhindered. Lastly, I believe many of our members are still in "post-IGF rest" and the activity on the list has diminished. I think it is not a good moment to call on a poll on such an important issue, that needs dicussion. My proposal would be to hang on to the idea of the poll (which is a good one after all), but to conduct it in 1 or 2 months, raising the discussion on the list first, and doing that based on IGC´s previous statement, and not on a concrete proposal by any country/group. Of course, that does not mean that we should not make critics/suggestions to IBSA doc, to be sent to the summit. Best wishes, Marília On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 10/10/2011, at 10:00 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: I just would like to reinforce that, as Jeremy mentioned, IGC has produced a statememt about enhanced cooperation. I could find it online here: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan043237.pdf and I take the opportunity to ask Jeremy to "pull" all our previous statements to the current website, as they are one of the most important elements of our institutional memory. It's also on our Statements page (http://www.igcaucus.org/statements) at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/43. On that statement IGC pointed out four general options about EC. The discussion to reach this 4 options was a very rich one, and I believe that any position from IGC about the institutional aspect of EC should build on that 4 options, not start from scratch. I also take the opportunity to ask for more clarification about the suggestion for the poll, as I did not understand what would be the topics covered. As it stands in draft, I have pulled out each of the substantive paragraphs of the IBSA summary and asked for the respondent to state how strongly they agree/disagree, and then I have asked "If there is no new body, then what else do you suggest" and given the following options (which draw on, but don't replicate, those from our EC submission), plus an "Other" option for respondents to enter their own suggestion: 1. No institutional change, no global norm-setting in areas not covered by existing institutions, improved consultation in areas that are. 2. Institutional improvements to the IGF, to enable it to produce policy options which policy makers (including at the national level) can use. 3. Institutional change outside of the UN system, such as a voluntary network of policy makers that would consult with all stakeholders. More options are welcome... -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 13:58:28 2011 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:58:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> Message-ID: Following on my own informal discussions at the IGF with representation from the Brazilian Government and noting the willingness of the Brazilians, at least, to discuss, compromise and collaborate, I am in support of Marilia's and Parminder's position as well as their rationale re: the proposed IGC Response/Statement ... On 10/10/11, michael gurstein wrote: > + 1 > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > Of Marilia Maciel > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 8:41 AM > To: Jeremy Malcolm > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of > 18-19 Summit? > > > Dear Jeremy and all, > > I would like to make some observations on the idea of making a poll. > > - Usually, voting comes right after a time of discussion, like elections > come after a campaign. This gives the range of ideas an opportunity to be > heard and debated and it makes the options (and the arguments behind them) > fresh in the memories of voters. As far as I remember, the last in depth > discussion about EC took place about a year ago (under the thread named > second draft statement on enhanced cooperation). It does not look like a > good procedure to call a vote on those options now, without a new round of > dicussions on the list. > > - Taking the risk to be misinterpreted, I need to express that I find that, > the way it is proposed, this approach will probably lead to unintended > results, mainly because: > > a) The political timing. After the reaction to the proposal advanced by > China and Russia, the mood is very much "let´s not change anything". I know > I will make a bad comparison, but it reminds me of initiatives that call on > a referendum to forbid abortion right after a baby has been abandoned or > killed. Timing means much in politics and one may wonder why we would be > pushing for an internal poll now, so many months after our substative > discussion. > > b) The political use that can be made about this poll, if it is conducted > the way it has been proposed. The governments themselves (without mentioning > CS) have all said that IBSA document needs improvement. Even people that > could support the general idea in some paragraphs will not support it the > way it is. But the external interpretations about CS statement will > certainly not take these nuances and the draft nature of the doc into > account. CS statement will be very exploitable and I think we should avoid > being politically used by other groups. > > c) using IBSA´s draft document as a way to find our position on EC is a > political decision with implications. We are not doing the same with more > concrete documents on the same matter, that are still pretty much > under-discussed, such as the ones from the US and the Commission. > Politically, this means that all attention will continue to be on IBSA, > while these other proposals continue to move forward, more or less > unhindered. > > Lastly, I believe many of our members are still in "post-IGF rest" and the > activity on the list has diminished. I think it is not a good moment to call > on a poll on such an important issue, that needs dicussion. > > My proposal would be to hang on to the idea of the poll (which is a good one > after all), but to conduct it in 1 or 2 months, raising the discussion on > the list first, and doing that based on IGC´s previous statement, and not on > a concrete proposal by any country/group. > > Of course, that does not mean that we should not make critics/suggestions to > IBSA doc, to be sent to the summit. > > Best wishes, > Marília > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > On 10/10/2011, at 10:00 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > I just would like to reinforce that, as Jeremy mentioned, IGC has produced a > statememt about enhanced cooperation. I could find it online here: > http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan043237.pdf > and I take the opportunity to ask Jeremy to "pull" all our previous > statements to the current website, as they are one of the most important > elements of our institutional memory. > > > > It's also on our Statements page (http://www.igcaucus.org/statements) at > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/43. > > > On that statement IGC pointed out four general options about EC. The > discussion to reach this 4 options was a very rich one, and I believe that > any position from IGC about the institutional aspect of EC should build on > that 4 options, not start from scratch. > > I also take the opportunity to ask for more clarification about the > suggestion for the poll, as I did not understand what would be the topics > covered. > > > > As it stands in draft, I have pulled out each of the substantive paragraphs > of the IBSA summary and asked for the respondent to state how strongly they > agree/disagree, and then I have asked "If there is no new body, then what > else do you suggest" and given the following options (which draw on, but > don't replicate, those from our EC submission), plus an "Other" option for > respondents to enter their own suggestion: > > 1. No institutional change, no global norm-setting in areas not covered > by existing institutions, improved consultation in areas that are. > > 2. Institutional improvements to the IGF, to enable it to produce > policy options which policy makers (including at the national level) can > use. > > 3. Institutional change outside of the UN system, such as a voluntary > network of policy makers that would consult with all stakeholders. > > More options are welcome... > > -- > > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't print > this email unless necessary. > > > > > > -- > 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 shailam at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 14:44:23 2011 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:44:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <9effbf3ad119ac711b2cc5161a61030c.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <4E8E9DC5.8090404@ciroap.org> <4E8F018D.9050809@cafonso.ca> <4E92BF8D.2050004@ciroap.org> <9effbf3ad119ac711b2cc5161a61030c.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1318272263.16332.YahooMailNeo@web161901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> +1 Shaila   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: "parminder at itforchange.net" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Cc: Marilia Maciel Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? > > As it stands in draft, I have pulled out each of the substantive > paragraphs of the IBSA summary and asked for the respondent to state how > strongly they agree/disagree, and then I have asked "If there is no new > body, then what else do you suggest" and given the following options > (which draw on, but don't replicate, those from our EC submission), plus > an "Other" option for respondents to enter their own suggestion: > No institutional change, no global norm-setting in areas not covered by > existing institutions, improved consultation in areas that are. > Institutional improvements to the IGF, to enable it to produce policy > options which policy makers (including at the national level) can use. > Institutional change outside of the UN system, such as a voluntary network > of policy makers that would consult with all stakeholders. > More options are welcome... This subject, first of all, deserves a rich and involved open discussion. I am very uncomfortable about directly going to poll with such unclear, and perhaps leading, set of options.  The topic is simply too important and central to IGC's work for that. Perhaps civil society's biggest claim to legitimacy is through the channels and processes of deliberative democracy. Questions will have to be asked and answered about this important issue in this forum before we proceed to taking a sense of the IGC's collective opinion. I am still in Africa and dont much regular access to the Internet, but very much look forward to an engaged discussion on this subject. parminder > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent > and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member > organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international > movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 14:37:43 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:37:43 -0300 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholder participation on internet governance - paper available online Message-ID: Dear all, We would like to share with you the paper "Multi-stakeholder participation on internet governance: An analysis from a developing country, civil society perspective", written by myself and Carlos Affonso, from the Center for Technology and Society of Getulio Vargas Foundation - Brazil, available from: http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/issue/governance/multi-stakeholder-participation-internet-governanc This paper is part of APC´s Network of networks initiative. We would like to thank very much APC, specially Valeria Betancourt and Pablo Accousto, for the support and patience. Any comments or suggestions are very much welcome. Best wishes, Marília and Carlos Affonso -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 19:43:03 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:43:03 +1200 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholder participation on internet governance - paper available online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Marilia, This was very interesting reading and I would just like to make a few observations. On page 4 of your paper, you highlight that the definition of Internet Governance (as per WGIG 2005 Report) sets the parameters for how people are to engage in internet governance and I think you used" how actors are to engage in internet governance". You mention that it all actors have equal importance and you mention that participation of non-state actors should not take place on an *ad hoc* basis, depending upon invitation or depending on the subject, as commonly happens in the discussion of other international issues. You also pointed to the final documents in both cases of the WSIS did not specify their roles and responsibilities in internet governance. I like how you talked about the strengths and weaknesses of that. I would like to add on to the strengths of it not specifying the roles and responsibilities. I think it is important that it is not prescribed. Even without the WGIG defining internet governance, the reality is states or governments are mandated by the people (in countries that have elections - social contract #referendum #voting ) to govern, the private sector often called the engines and drivers of national economy are called to operate their businesses. Civil society (in countries that encourage the presence of civil society, there are jurisdictions who struggle to be heard eg. Iran, Yemen, Fiji etc) have a role to act as watchdogs and to look out for the interests of the marginalised. How government functions in Iran is different from how government functions in Australia etc. Similarly, civil society in South Africa will be different from civil society in Nauru. There are different contexts and the plurality of jurisprudence is clear. Similarly private sector in Spain is different from private sector in the Pacific. Behind the "seen" or visible realms and the reasons for this are varied and it could include things like approaches to "regulations" by the state, political will etc. Things like universal service and access, there are diverse views on how to better give access to the underserved, some say that there should be things like Universal Service Obligations (USOs) and some believe that is archaic but that effective competition is far better able to sustainably allow underserved communities to have better access. The beauty about IGF is that it allows everyone to come equally to the table without having their role defined to discuss on an equal footing lessons and challenges to enable each other to develop and leapfrog. This was why it was interesting to see "VIP" badges at the IGF. One transcendent thing about the Internet is the manner in which it is equalising and democratising power, in terms of the "user perspective) for example you have Parliamentarians in Europe who are conscious about how they behave. There are still jurisdictions in the world where authority figures do not want to be "transparent". I had mentioned that governments all over the world behave differently not only because they are in different geographical locations, but have different contexts and subject to different jurisprudence which causes them to behave differently and as such laws and regulations, norms are different. It is kind of like where you can expect skimpy dressing in Bondi and for someone to be covered up in Afghanistan. Similarly countries differ in how they view privacy and censorship because governments behave differently. The danger of defining the roles and responsibilities of actors in internet governance is that in our attempt for efficiency, we then endanger vulnerable groups. Imagine civil society in a country where free speech is codified to be allowed and permitted but on the ground is treated as sedition. The IGF like a market is able to set its own tempo without being regulated. The danger of regulating the market or the IGF is that there will be conflicting applications. Governments already regulate ISPs in their countries and set rules for competition and drive policy. We already have the ITU, WTO, WIPO that looks after ICT and work towards to improving policy and building capacity. Remember we have some intergovernmental institutions that are on record for having views that the internet should be patented, see: http://boingboing.net/2011/10/08/wipo-boss-the-web-would-have-been-better-if-it-was-patented-and-its-users-had-to-pay-license-fees.html There are developing countries whose governments do not believe that the private sector nor civil society should be consulted when making policy and decisions. Would defining their roles and responsibilities create any impact in the domestic context. From my observations, at least in my part of the world, it would not. What is needed is the creation of a safe place where people can dialogue where Governments can come in time to learn and see/witness the tangible benefits of a multi-stakeholder dialogue and discussion that is not regulated nor prescribed. To seek to have the IGF to be absorbed into the multilateral framework is to seek to have ITU to absorb the IGF. Would it not be better that we retained the IGF multistakeholder process independent and open and lobby to have the ITU be more inclusive of involving others into their working groups other than the current paying members which are largely governments and corporations that can afford the levies. In terms of increasing participation and meaningful participation, there are people who are doing what they can to increase participation and educate their regions on internet governance and whilst the pace seems slow there is powerful collaboration between actors and industries as they gather to work together. To increase participation, we have to work together with the IG Secretariat and stakeholders and map out ways to increase and strengthen participation but in my mind, the absorption into the UN system is not the answer. I think we should ask people what they want to see before we dialogue on methodology that way the discussion on methodology can be fruitful. Best, On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > We would like to share with you the paper "Multi-stakeholder participation > on internet governance: An analysis from a developing country, civil society > perspective", written by myself and Carlos Affonso, from the Center for > Technology and Society of Getulio Vargas Foundation - Brazil, available > from: > > http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/issue/governance/multi-stakeholder-participation-internet-governanc > > This paper is part of APC´s Network of networks initiative. We would like > to thank very much APC, specially Valeria Betancourt and Pablo Accousto, for > the support and patience. > > Any comments or suggestions are very much welcome. > > Best wishes, > Marília and Carlos Affonso > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 20:32:52 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:32:52 +1200 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholder participation on internet governance - paper available online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/10/us-cambodia-genocide-idUSTRE7994H620111010 also in a way illustrates the point that I was trying to make about the diversity of jurisprudence. On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Marilia, > > This was very interesting reading and I would just like to make a few > observations. > > On page 4 of your paper, you highlight that the definition of Internet > Governance (as per WGIG 2005 Report) sets the parameters for how people are > to engage in internet governance and I think you used" how actors are to > engage in internet governance". You mention that it all actors have equal > importance and you mention that participation of non-state actors should not > take place on an *ad hoc* basis, depending upon invitation or depending on > the subject, as commonly happens in the discussion of other international > issues. You also pointed to the final documents in both cases of the WSIS > did not specify their roles and responsibilities in internet governance. I > like how you talked about the strengths and weaknesses of that. I would like > to add on to the strengths of it not specifying the roles and > responsibilities. I think it is important that it is not prescribed. > > Even without the WGIG defining internet governance, the reality is states > or governments are mandated by the people (in countries that have elections > - social contract #referendum #voting ) to govern, the private sector often > called the engines and drivers of national economy are called to operate > their businesses. Civil society (in countries that encourage the presence of > civil society, there are jurisdictions who struggle to be heard eg. Iran, > Yemen, Fiji etc) have a role to act as watchdogs and to look out for the > interests of the marginalised. > > How government functions in Iran is different from how government functions > in Australia etc. Similarly, civil society in South Africa will be different > from civil society in Nauru. There are different contexts and the plurality > of jurisprudence is clear. Similarly private sector in Spain is different > from private sector in the Pacific. Behind the "seen" or visible realms and > the reasons for this are varied and it could include things like approaches > to "regulations" by the state, political will etc. Things like universal > service and access, there are diverse views on how to better give access to > the underserved, some say that there should be things like Universal Service > Obligations (USOs) and some believe that is archaic but that effective > competition is far better able to sustainably allow underserved communities > to have better access. The beauty about IGF is that it allows everyone to > come equally to the table without having their role defined to discuss on an > equal footing lessons and challenges to enable each other to develop and > leapfrog. > > This was why it was interesting to see "VIP" badges at the IGF. One > transcendent thing about the Internet is the manner in which it is > equalising and democratising power, in terms of the "user perspective) for > example you have Parliamentarians in Europe who are conscious about how they > behave. There are still jurisdictions in the world where authority figures > do not want to be "transparent". I had mentioned that governments all over > the world behave differently not only because they are in different > geographical locations, but have different contexts and subject to different > jurisprudence which causes them to behave differently and as such laws and > regulations, norms are different. It is kind of like where you can expect > skimpy dressing in Bondi and for someone to be covered up in Afghanistan. > > Similarly countries differ in how they view privacy and censorship because > governments behave differently. The danger of defining the roles and > responsibilities of actors in internet governance is that in our attempt for > efficiency, we then endanger vulnerable groups. Imagine civil society in a > country where free speech is codified to be allowed and permitted but on the > ground is treated as sedition. The IGF like a market is able to set its own > tempo without being regulated. The danger of regulating the market or the > IGF is that there will be conflicting applications. Governments already > regulate ISPs in their countries and set rules for competition and drive > policy. We already have the ITU, WTO, WIPO that looks after ICT and work > towards to improving policy and building capacity. Remember we have some > intergovernmental institutions that are on record for having views that the > internet should be patented, see: > http://boingboing.net/2011/10/08/wipo-boss-the-web-would-have-been-better-if-it-was-patented-and-its-users-had-to-pay-license-fees.html > > There are developing countries whose governments do not believe that the > private sector nor civil society should be consulted when making policy and > decisions. Would defining their roles and responsibilities create any impact > in the domestic context. From my observations, at least in my part of the > world, it would not. What is needed is the creation of a safe place where > people can dialogue where Governments can come in time to learn and > see/witness the tangible benefits of a multi-stakeholder dialogue and > discussion that is not regulated nor prescribed. > > To seek to have the IGF to be absorbed into the multilateral framework is > to seek to have ITU to absorb the IGF. Would it not be better that we > retained the IGF multistakeholder process independent and open and lobby to > have the ITU be more inclusive of involving others into their working groups > other than the current paying members which are largely governments and > corporations that can afford the levies. > > In terms of increasing participation and meaningful participation, there > are people who are doing what they can to increase participation and educate > their regions on internet governance and whilst the pace seems slow there is > powerful collaboration between actors and industries as they gather to work > together. To increase participation, we have to work together with the IG > Secretariat and stakeholders and map out ways to increase and strengthen > participation but in my mind, the absorption into the UN system is not the > answer. > > I think we should ask people what they want to see before we dialogue on > methodology that way the discussion on methodology can be fruitful. > > Best, > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> We would like to share with you the paper "Multi-stakeholder >> participation on internet governance: An analysis from a developing country, >> civil society perspective", written by myself and Carlos Affonso, from the >> Center for Technology and Society of Getulio Vargas Foundation - Brazil, >> available from: >> >> http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/issue/governance/multi-stakeholder-participation-internet-governanc >> >> This paper is part of APC´s Network of networks initiative. We would like >> to thank very much APC, specially Valeria Betancourt and Pablo Accousto, for >> the support and patience. >> >> Any comments or suggestions are very much welcome. >> >> Best wishes, >> Marília and Carlos Affonso >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for Technology and Society >> Getulio Vargas Foundation >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> >> >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for Technology and Society >> Getulio Vargas Foundation >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Oct 10 20:39:45 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:39:45 +0800 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> Message-ID: <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> On 11/10/2011, at 1:58 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > Following on my own informal discussions at the IGF with > representation from the Brazilian Government and noting the > willingness of the Brazilians, at least, to discuss, compromise and > collaborate, I am in support of Marilia's and Parminder's position as > well as their rationale re: the proposed IGC Response/Statement ... Then, I don't think we will be able to finish a substantively useful statement in time for the IBSA Summit but could only restate the more high-level ideas from our enhanced cooperation statement, since our collective view has not been much refined since then. That is OK, because it is better to be thoughtful than on time, but if anyone does not wish us to miss the opportunity to contribute ahead of the IBSA Summit then please help to discuss: How to respond to each of these assertions? There is an institutional gap in managing global Internet processes and developing policies for Internet at a global level which needs to be addressed. This requires a new body (outside of the IGF, ITU, OECD, etc.) to coordinate and evolve coherent and integrated global public policies pertaining to the Internet. If a new body is created, it should be located within the UN system. If a new body is created, it should develop and establish international public policies on cross-cutting Internet-related global issues. If a new body is created, it should oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting. If a new body is created, it should address developmental issues related to the Internet. If a new body is created, it should undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary. If a new body is created, it should be responsible for crisis management If a new body is not formed within the UN system, how else should global public policies for the Internet be set, in cases that fall outside the competence of any global body? No institutional change, no global norm-setting in areas not covered by existing institutions, improved consultation in areas that are. Institutional improvements to the IGF, to enable it to produce policy options which policy makers (including at the national level) can use. Institutional change outside of the UN system, such as a voluntary network of policy makers that would consult with all stakeholders. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2212 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aizu at anr.org Mon Oct 10 21:57:55 2011 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:57:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: There will be IGF open consultation scheduled sometime in November. If we could reach good stage to call for a consensus, that will be another good target. The next meeting of the CSTD WG on IGF improbement will be taken place on Oct 31-Nov 2 in Geneva. We like to make a request to make it more open, allowing "observer" in the room. So there are more opportunities to come. izumi 2011/10/11 Jeremy Malcolm : > On 11/10/2011, at 1:58 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > > Following on my own informal discussions at the IGF with > representation from the Brazilian Government and noting the > willingness of the Brazilians, at least, to discuss, compromise and > collaborate, I am in support of Marilia's and Parminder's position as > well as their rationale re: the proposed IGC Response/Statement ... > > Then, I don't think we will be able to finish a substantively useful > statement in time for the IBSA Summit but could only restate the more > high-level ideas from our enhanced cooperation statement, since our > collective view has not been much refined since then.  That is OK, because > it is better to be thoughtful than on time, but if anyone does not wish us > to miss the opportunity to contribute ahead of the IBSA Summit then please > help to discuss: > How to respond to each of these assertions? > > There is an institutional gap in managing global Internet processes and > developing policies for Internet at a global level which needs to be > addressed. > This requires a new body (outside of the IGF, ITU, OECD, etc.) to coordinate > and evolve coherent and integrated global public policies pertaining to the > Internet. > If a new body is created, it should be located within the UN system. > If a new body is created, it should develop and establish international > public policies on cross-cutting Internet-related global issues. > If a new body is created, it should oversee the bodies responsible for > technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global > standards setting. > If a new body is created, it should address developmental issues related to > the Internet. > If a new body is created, it should undertake arbitration and dispute > resolution, where necessary. > If a new body is created, it should be responsible for crisis management > > If a new body is not formed within the UN system, how else should global > public policies for the Internet be set, in cases that fall outside the > competence of any global body? > > No institutional change, no global norm-setting in areas not covered by > existing institutions, improved consultation in areas that are. > Institutional improvements to the IGF, to enable it to produce policy > options which policy makers (including at the national level) can use. > Institutional change outside of the UN system, such as a voluntary network > of policy makers that would consult with all stakeholders. > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Mon Oct 10 22:00:39 2011 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:00:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Nominees for next co-coordinator position In-Reply-To: <4E929FCD.6060100@ciroap.org> References: <290EA09D-040C-4EF5-9FE9-444E563217DB@ciroap.org> <4E929FCD.6060100@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Though election is soon to be taken place, I would urge all nominees to send your statement asap. It is very important for us to make an informed decision and your ability to appeal or demonstrate to all IGC members in writing within limited time is also a very important skill for our coordinator. Please!! izumi 2011/10/10 Jeremy Malcolm : > I am about to send out the ballots, but so far I only have one election > statement (from Sonigitu Ekpe).  If any of the other candidates (Asif > Kabani, Imran Ahmed Shah, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) would like to make a > statement, please send it to me or the list within the next 24 hours.  Any > late nominations may also be sent within that period. > > Thanks. > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Oct 10 22:14:27 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:14:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> ,<1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, I agree with Tracy, Marila and Parminder that a poll is premature, seeing as we would be placing hard votes on what the proponents are stating is a soft and possibly malleable thing, that is, the IBSA proposal; without much time for reflection and online discussion here. But on other hand, I would not belittle our own EC handiwork from 2010, which remains imho a substantive contribution to the dialogue. So just bringing our '10 formulation of EC alternatives to IBSA's attention is a contribution to the current state of play. Which includes recognition of the IGF as among other things, a place in which EC happens. (So..proponents of EC in UN system should be happy since it's already there; and proponents for IG status quo should be happy since IGF...well let's just say, it has certain limitations. ; ) Seriously, the 2010 statement of IGC on EC should be our own starting point, not the particular formulation of an evolving draft from others. We should push IBSA towards utilizing our own language and formulations, not react to specifics of the IBSA draft without time for much thought or reflection. imho. Lee ________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 8:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Subject: Re: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? On 11/10/2011, at 1:58 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: Following on my own informal discussions at the IGF with representation from the Brazilian Government and noting the willingness of the Brazilians, at least, to discuss, compromise and collaborate, I am in support of Marilia's and Parminder's position as well as their rationale re: the proposed IGC Response/Statement ... Then, I don't think we will be able to finish a substantively useful statement in time for the IBSA Summit but could only restate the more high-level ideas from our enhanced cooperation statement, since our collective view has not been much refined since then. That is OK, because it is better to be thoughtful than on time, but if anyone does not wish us to miss the opportunity to contribute ahead of the IBSA Summit then please help to discuss: How to respond to each of these assertions? * There is an institutional gap in managing global Internet processes and developing policies for Internet at a global level which needs to be addressed. * This requires a new body (outside of the IGF, ITU, OECD, etc.) to coordinate and evolve coherent and integrated global public policies pertaining to the Internet. * If a new body is created, it should be located within the UN system. * If a new body is created, it should develop and establish international public policies on cross-cutting Internet-related global issues. * If a new body is created, it should oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting. * If a new body is created, it should address developmental issues related to the Internet. * If a new body is created, it should undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary. * If a new body is created, it should be responsible for crisis management If a new body is not formed within the UN system, how else should global public policies for the Internet be set, in cases that fall outside the competence of any global body? * No institutional change, no global norm-setting in areas not covered by existing institutions, improved consultation in areas that are. * Institutional improvements to the IGF, to enable it to produce policy options which policy makers (including at the national level) can use. * Institutional change outside of the UN system, such as a voluntary network of policy makers that would consult with all stakeholders. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 10 22:18:00 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:18:00 +0800 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> ,<1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4E93A758.5020906@ciroap.org> On 11/10/11 10:14, Lee W McKnight wrote: > But on other hand, I would not belittle our own EC handiwork from > 2010, which remains imho a substantive contribution to the dialogue. > So just bringing our '10 formulation of EC alternatives to IBSA's > attention is a contribution to the current state of play. Yes, I will make sure that 2010 statement is delivered to the IBSA negotiators, whilst we continue to discuss and develop more specific ideas. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 22:23:17 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:23:17 +1200 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 11/10/2011, at 1:58 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > > Following on my own informal discussions at the IGF with > representation from the Brazilian Government and noting the > willingness of the Brazilians, at least, to discuss, compromise and > collaborate, I am in support of Marilia's and Parminder's position as > well as their rationale re: the proposed IGC Response/Statement ... > > > Then, I don't think we will be able to finish a substantively useful > statement in time for the IBSA Summit but could only restate the more > high-level ideas from our enhanced cooperation statement, since our > collective view has not been much refined since then. That is OK, because > it is better to be thoughtful than on time, but if anyone does not wish us > to miss the opportunity to contribute ahead of the IBSA Summit then please > help to discuss: > > How to respond to each of these assertions? > > - There is an institutional gap in managing global Internet processes > and developing policies for Internet at a global level which needs to be > addressed. > > Organisations already exist to create policies etc. eg. Governments, Regulators but if in "institutional gap" and global internet processes you mean IANA/ICANN etc, then they should specify what specific institutional gaps? > > - This requires a new body (outside of the IGF, ITU, OECD, etc.) to > coordinate and evolve coherent and integrated global public policies > pertaining to the Internet. > > Unfortunately, the world does not work that way. This assertion effectively requires stakeholders to give up their interests and render it towards this global body. This is how "social contracts" work and is this feasible. They can be coerced and forced to give it up through governments across the globe but how does that place Internet Governance, what you will see then is the shift to Government as opposed to Governance. > > - If a new body is created, it should be located within the UN system. > > Some say that they want a new body but the UN has hundreds of pressing crises that it is dealing with that involves the prioritisation of resources and I don't foresee them creating an Institution within the UN but rather pushing it to an existing institution that is already dealing with it and the most plausible choice seems to be the ITU. > > - If a new body is created, it should develop and establish > international public policies on cross-cutting Internet-related global > issues. > > Why create a new body when you already have bodies doing this and you can lobby to improve policies within and processes? > > - If a new body is created, it should oversee the bodies responsible > for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global > standards setting. > > Why create a new body when you already have bodies doing this and you can lobby to improve policies within and processes?. The ITU creates and sets ITU-T standards through its working groups etc and IETF has a democratisation process in the creation and setting of standards which is workable. What are the implications of having a one stop shop. There is a saying that the only efficient government is a dictatorship and we are in danger of creating a global dictatorship and authoritarian regime . > > - If a new body is created, it should address developmental issues > related to the Internet. > > Countries should take responsibility for their development. The IGF is simply a forum in which countries should be able to share processes etc for the development whether it is in the area of e commerce, ICT strategies, content filtering, capacity development etc. There are institutions that already exist that address developmental issues, we should just promote access to these processes such as meaningful participation in global policy processes not create a new body. > > - If a new body is created, it should undertake arbitration and dispute > resolution, where necessary. > > My comments above. This infers the creation of a multilateral treaty by Governments at the expense of marginalising the voices of private sector and civil society which will include arbitration and dispute resolution. > > - If a new body is created, it should be responsible for crisis > management > > Firstly since when was it agreed that the body should be responsible for crisis management. > If a new body is not formed within the UN system, how else should global > public policies for the Internet be set, in cases that fall outside the > competence of any global body? > > - No institutional change, no global norm-setting in areas not covered > by existing institutions, improved consultation in areas that are. > > The Budapest Convention is an example of global norm setting. It does not attempt to create any institution to look after matters of cyber security as governments have control and authority in their jurisdictions. You have a variety of stakeholders such as CERTS, CSIRTs, ISPs, Interpol, etc but no single institution can claim that it is the sole authority for global policy processes in relation to cyber security. > > - Institutional improvements to the IGF, to enable it to produce policy > options which policy makers (including at the national level) can use. > - Institutional change outside of the UN system, such as a voluntary > network of policy makers that would consult with all stakeholders. > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 22:37:26 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:37:26 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Syria In-Reply-To: <4E92DF3D.1080608@cafonso.ca> References: <4E92DF3D.1080608@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: You are right Carlos, precisely because of Governments different perspectives because of their different jurisprudence, agendas and interest is why we should never let any single institution to look after global internet policy processes, there are just too many variables. On another note, more interesting developments in Syria and abroad can be found: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/10/us-syria-opposition-technocrats-idUSTRE7994R520111010 2011/10/11 Carlos A. Afonso > Hmmm, this reminds me of USA's silence when its pawns, Bahrein's > dictatorship, arrests and condemns physicians and nurses, or when its > other pawns, the Saudi Arabian dictatorship... but these are not issues > for this list, I guess. > > The BR government has already made clear in several instances that the > document is a *draft*, that it is discussing it with Brazilian civil > society (and I can testify it is) and that it will be rewritten. Romulo, > the Itamaraty person chiefly involved in this process, is open to > dialogue with anyone, Brazilian or not, as Bill himself can testify. > > BTW, this trilateral forum called IBSA is *not* focused on Internet > governance (this is just a small part of a much larger effort since at > least 2003, when even the talk of IG was non-existent), and there is a > complex set of discussions on a wide array of themes for collaboration > in process. > > Also, the ways of civil society participation in government policy is > not uniform in the three countries, each government has its own views, > and this is a joint proposal. So be it, central countries' folks try to > sit on their own tails while bashing us for having our tails. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 10/09/2011 06:48 AM, William Drake wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:40 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > >> Also see the abstentions when reading the failed resolution and it is > >> the message that it sends which is far more pronounced and profound. > > > > including Brazil, India, and South Africa, which also opposed UN > > sanctions on Iran's "peaceful nuclear program" when the government there > > was busy hunting down and executing protesters. But want a new UN body > > to develop global Internet policies and "integrate and oversee the > > bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the > > Internet, including global standards setting." Then we can have > > intergovernmental horse trading over all aspects of global IG with > > Russia, China, et al linking voting deals on issues like their proposed > > code of conduct for acceptable Internet speech, TLDs, address > > assignments, standards, etc. to deals on sanctions and other > > geopolitical items. That should help ensure a stable and open Internet… > > > > Bill > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 11 02:17:41 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:47:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> ,<1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> > Hi, > > I agree with Tracy, Marila and Parminder that a poll is premature, seeing > as we would be placing hard votes on what the proponents are stating is a > soft and possibly malleable thing, that is, the IBSA proposal; without > much time for reflection and online discussion here. > > But on other hand, I would not belittle our own EC handiwork from 2010, > which remains imho a substantive contribution to the dialogue. So just > bringing our '10 formulation of EC alternatives to IBSA's attention is a > contribution to the current state of play. > > Which includes recognition of the IGF as among other things, a place in > which EC happens. (So..proponents of EC in UN system should be happy > since it's already there; and proponents for IG status quo should be happy > since IGF...well let's just say, it has certain limitations. ; ) some quick comments. the process of Enhanced cooperation (EC)is specifically to address global internet related public policy issues. UN now recognizes EC and the IGF as two 'distinct but complementary' processes. IGF being the forum for wide policy dialogue and policy influence ensuring the broadest possible participation. This is also how I see the whole thing. But, in any case, even some people want to posit the IGF in a more substantive policy role, they MUST then first tell us how IGF will actually fulfill that role. The paradox is - those who want to say EC happens in the IGF are also (with a few exceptions, like you/ Milton) among those who dont want to change/improve the IGFs processes of substantive 'global' policy related outcomes. I dont see such a position at all tenable. You cant have the cake and eat it too. So, can i request those who want to forward this position of 'EC is happening in the IGF well enough, and there is no need for any other institution' to pl spell out their position on how IGF will deliver 'global' policy outcomes, of whatever variety (soft etc). This is especially relevant for the forthcoming meeting of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. parminder > > Seriously, the 2010 statement of IGC on EC should be our own starting > point, not the particular formulation of an evolving draft from others. > We should push IBSA towards utilizing our own language and formulations, > not react to specifics of the IBSA draft without time for much thought or > reflection. imho. > > Lee > > > > > ________________________________ > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] on behalf of > Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 8:39 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > Subject: Re: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of > 18-19 Summit? > > On 11/10/2011, at 1:58 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > > Following on my own informal discussions at the IGF with > representation from the Brazilian Government and noting the > willingness of the Brazilians, at least, to discuss, compromise and > collaborate, I am in support of Marilia's and Parminder's position as > well as their rationale re: the proposed IGC Response/Statement ... > > Then, I don't think we will be able to finish a substantively useful > statement in time for the IBSA Summit but could only restate the more > high-level ideas from our enhanced cooperation statement, since our > collective view has not been much refined since then. That is OK, because > it is better to be thoughtful than on time, but if anyone does not wish us > to miss the opportunity to contribute ahead of the IBSA Summit then please > help to discuss: > > How to respond to each of these assertions? > > * There is an institutional gap in managing global Internet processes > and developing policies for Internet at a global level which needs to be > addressed. > * This requires a new body (outside of the IGF, ITU, OECD, etc.) to > coordinate and evolve coherent and integrated global public policies > pertaining to the Internet. > * If a new body is created, it should be located within the UN system. > * If a new body is created, it should develop and establish > international public policies on cross-cutting Internet-related global > issues. > * If a new body is created, it should oversee the bodies responsible > for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including > global standards setting. > * If a new body is created, it should address developmental issues > related to the Internet. > * If a new body is created, it should undertake arbitration and > dispute resolution, where necessary. > * If a new body is created, it should be responsible for crisis > management > > If a new body is not formed within the UN system, how else should global > public policies for the Internet be set, in cases that fall outside the > competence of any global body? > > * No institutional change, no global norm-setting in areas not covered > by existing institutions, improved consultation in areas that are. > * Institutional improvements to the IGF, to enable it to produce > policy options which policy makers (including at the national level) can > use. > * Institutional change outside of the UN system, such as a voluntary > network of policy makers that would consult with all stakeholders. > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent > and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member > organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international > movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality > notice. Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 02:43:39 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:43:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: I'll bite. I too am not in favor of a poll at this time (or at all, since our decisions are supposed to be based on a consensus model). On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:17 AM, wrote: > > Hi, > > The paradox is - those who want to say EC happens in the IGF are also > (with a few exceptions, like you/ Milton) among those who dont want to > change/improve the IGFs processes of substantive 'global' policy related > outcomes. I dont see such a position at all tenable. You cant have the > cake and eat it too. > If you are eating cake, you, by dfinition "have it" as well. The fact of the matter is that EC happens in the IGF (all along the process, not just at annual meetings). I saw it with my own eyes here in Nairobi. > > So, can i request those who want to forward this position of 'EC is > happening in the IGF well enough, and there is no need for any other > institution' to pl spell out their position on how IGF will deliver > 'global' policy outcomes, of whatever variety (soft etc). This is > especially relevant for the forthcoming meeting of the CSTD WG on IGF > improvements. > The IGF is not supposed to produce outcomes, but is supposed to increase understanding. I think it incumbent upon those who want a new body or bodies to spell out EXACTLY in which areas there are gaps that need filling, how such a new body would fill those gaps (and only those gaps). Clearly, a takeover of ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc by a multilateral body (as proposed by IBSA) will not fill any gaps. It's just a power play. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 05:30:26 2011 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:30:26 +0300 Subject: [governance] Pornography to be blocked by internet service providers unless users opt in Message-ID: <4E940CB2.9050306@gmail.com> Pornography to be blocked by internet service providers unless users opt in David Cameron unveils deal with big four providers based on charity's proposals to protect children from sexual content * o o o reddit this * Ben Quinn * The Guardian , Tuesday 11 October 2011 * Article history Someone watching pornography on a computer People who want to watch pornography online will have to 'opt in' with their internet service providers under measures to be announced by the PM. Photograph: Dan Chung for the Guardian Subscribers to four of the UK's biggest internet service providers will have to "opt in" if they want to view sexually explicit websites, as part of government-sponsored curbs on online pornography . The measures will be unveiled on Tuesday as David Cameron hosts No 10 meeting with the Mothers' Union, which earlier this year produced a raft of proposals to shield children from sexualised imagery. The prime minister is expected to announce other moves in line with the Christian charity's review, such as restrictions on aggressive advertising campaigns and certain types of images on billboards. There will also be a website, Parentport, which parents can use to complain about television programmes, advertisements, products or services which they believe are inappropriate for children. The site, which will direct complaints to the regulator dealing with that specific area of concern, is expected to be run by watchdogs including the Advertising Standards Authority, BBC Trust, British Board of Film Classification, Ofcom, Press Complaints Commission, Video Standards Council and Pan European Game Information. The service providers involved are BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin. Customers who do not opt in to adult content will be unableto access pornographic websites. Cameron gave strong backing in June to the Mothers' Union proposals after he commissioned a six-month review by the charity's chief executive, Reg Bailey. However, Cameron did not commit to legislation. Bailey's recommendations included providing parents with one single website to make it easier to complain about any programme, advert, product or service, putting age restrictions on music videos and ensuring retailers offer age-appropriate clothes for children. Cameron wrote to Bailey in June to thank him for his report. "I very much agree with the central approach you set out," the letter said. "As you say, we should not try and wrap children up in cotton wool or simply throw our hands up and accept the world as it is. Instead, we should look to put 'the brakes on an unthinking drift towards ever-greater commercialisation and sexualisation'." Bailey's report asked for government and business to work together on initiatives such as ending the sale of inappropriately "sexy" clothing for young children, for example underwired bras and T-shirts with suggestive slogans. However, he recommended that if retailers do not make progress on the issue they should be forced to make the changes in 18 months. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: icon_reddit.gif Type: image/gif Size: 600 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Someone-watching-pornogra-007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20885 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From KovenRonald at aol.com Tue Oct 11 06:19:33 2011 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:19:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? Message-ID: <7ad21.71219e2.3bc57235@aol.com> Dear All -- I certainly agree that placing existing I'net bodies, including ICANN and IGF under ITU is a bad idea whose time should not come. The present setup is undoubtedly wanting from a theoretical viewpoint. But the practical reality is that it works, more or less. It maintains the distributed nature of the I'net. Those who were offended by seeing VIP badges on the most junior governmental representatives in Nairobi ain't seen nothing yet if the ITU were to take the control for which it has been itching from the start. I wonder whether those in the IG Caucus who have spoken for ITU have actually seen it at work in Geneva and elsewhere. Its culture is distinctly opposed to multistakeholderism and in favor of government regulation and corporate influence. The current setup is undoubtedly messy-looking on an organizational chart, but a beautiful, clear chart will most likely lead to centralized control with heavy influence of governments like China. We should be wary of what I see as the esthetics of the policeman, calling for everyone to stand to attention in the queue.We should learn not to be frightened of and to live with ambiguity, instability and uncertainty -- also amongst the principles operative in the universe. Best regards, Rony Koven, World Press Freedom Committee In a message dated 10/11/11 8:46:19 AM, dogwallah at gmail.com writes: > Clearly, a takeover of ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc by a multilateral body > (as proposed by IBSA) will not fill any gaps.  It's just a power play. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Dixie at global-partners.co.uk Tue Oct 11 07:51:06 2011 From: Dixie at global-partners.co.uk (Dixie Hawtin) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:51:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Pornography to be blocked by internet service providers unless users opt in In-Reply-To: <4E940CB2.9050306@gmail.com> References: <4E940CB2.9050306@gmail.com> Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB83C9AAFA987@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Apparently the story isn't true - the ISPs had actually just agreed to initiate campaigns to assist parents in installing parental control filters which they provided anyways. See the Open Rights Group response here: http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2011/censorware-or-child-protection Best, Dixie From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Riaz K Tayob Sent: 11 October 2011 10:30 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Pornography to be blocked by internet service providers unless users opt in Pornography to be blocked by internet service providers unless users opt in David Cameron unveils deal with big four providers based on charity's proposals to protect children from sexual content * * * * [cid:image001.gif at 01CC8814.71013610] reddit this * Ben Quinn * The Guardian, Tuesday 11 October 2011 * Article history [cid:image002.jpg at 01CC8814.71013610] People who want to watch pornography online will have to 'opt in' with their internet service providers under measures to be announced by the PM. Photograph: Dan Chung for the Guardian Subscribers to four of the UK's biggest internet service providers will have to "opt in" if they want to view sexually explicit websites, as part of government-sponsored curbs on online pornography. The measures will be unveiled on Tuesday as David Cameron hosts No 10 meeting with the Mothers' Union, which earlier this year produced a raft of proposals to shield children from sexualised imagery. The prime minister is expected to announce other moves in line with the Christian charity's review, such as restrictions on aggressive advertising campaigns and certain types of images on billboards. There will also be a website, Parentport, which parents can use to complain about television programmes, advertisements, products or services which they believe are inappropriate for children. The site, which will direct complaints to the regulator dealing with that specific area of concern, is expected to be run by watchdogs including the Advertising Standards Authority, BBC Trust, British Board of Film Classification, Ofcom, Press Complaints Commission, Video Standards Council and Pan European Game Information. The service providers involved are BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin. Customers who do not opt in to adult content will be unableto access pornographic websites. Cameron gave strong backing in June to the Mothers' Union proposals after he commissioned a six-month review by the charity's chief executive, Reg Bailey. However, Cameron did not commit to legislation. Bailey's recommendations included providing parents with one single website to make it easier to complain about any programme, advert, product or service, putting age restrictions on music videos and ensuring retailers offer age-appropriate clothes for children. Cameron wrote to Bailey in June to thank him for his report. "I very much agree with the central approach you set out," the letter said. "As you say, we should not try and wrap children up in cotton wool or simply throw our hands up and accept the world as it is. Instead, we should look to put 'the brakes on an unthinking drift towards ever-greater commercialisation and sexualisation'." Bailey's report asked for government and business to work together on initiatives such as ending the sale of inappropriately "sexy" clothing for young children, for example underwired bras and T-shirts with suggestive slogans. However, he recommended that if retailers do not make progress on the issue they should be forced to make the changes in 18 months. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 600 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20885 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Oct 11 08:38:24 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:38:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> McTim, On 10/11/2011 03:43 AM, McTim wrote: > I'll bite. > > I too am not in favor of a poll at this time (or at all, since our > decisions are supposed to be based on a consensus model). > [...] > The IGF is not supposed to produce outcomes, but is supposed to > increase understanding. It does already produce *some* outcomes, through the various results from workshops and similar parallel meetings. And the IGF might change, why not? Doesn't the "technical community" like changes in paradigms? [...] > > Clearly, a takeover of ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc by a multilateral > body (as proposed by IBSA) will not fill any gaps. It's just a > power play. > Now, this is really news to me, and I think I know English enough to grasp what the by now famous IBSA doc said or did not say. There is not even mention of any of these entities, which are of entirely different natures in scope, mandate, incidence, decision-making, relation to gov bodies etc etc. This was sparked by MM's furor expressed in an article in the IGP when first read the doc, and some people keep parroting this. Amazing! --c.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 sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Tue Oct 11 09:14:13 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:14:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Dear Great Fellows and Friends, Greetings! I hope we are brave enough to think differently, bold enough to believe we could change the world, and talented enough to do it. You all have put up good inputs! Most interesting is Mc Tim's, point "power play" quite interesting. Looking forward to see how we change the way each of us sees the world today; "the Internet ". Warm regards, Sonigitu Ekpe *Project Support Officer[Agriculturist]* Cross River Farm Credit Scheme Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources 3 Barracks Road P.M.B. 1119 Calabar - Cross River State, Nigeria. Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 Skype: sonigitu.asibong.ekpe.aji *"LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" * On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > McTim, > > On 10/11/2011 03:43 AM, McTim wrote: > > I'll bite. > > > > I too am not in favor of a poll at this time (or at all, since our > > decisions are supposed to be based on a consensus model). > > > [...] > > The IGF is not supposed to produce outcomes, but is supposed to > > increase understanding. > > It does already produce *some* outcomes, through the various results > from workshops and similar parallel meetings. And the IGF might change, > why not? Doesn't the "technical community" like changes in paradigms? > > [...] > > > > Clearly, a takeover of ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc by a multilateral > > body (as proposed by IBSA) will not fill any gaps. It's just a > > power play. > > > > Now, this is really news to me, and I think I know English enough to > grasp what the by now famous IBSA doc said or did not say. There is not > even mention of any of these entities, which are of entirely different > natures in scope, mandate, incidence, decision-making, relation to gov > bodies etc etc. This was sparked by MM's furor expressed in an article > in the IGP when first read the doc, and some people keep parroting this. > Amazing! > > --c.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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Tue Oct 11 10:31:54 2011 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:31:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Voting for IGC Coordinator In-Reply-To: References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4E94535A.9070804@communisphere.com> I just cast my vote for coordinator and wanted to express my gratitude to all the candidates for presenting us with a rich choice. Thanks to all. Tom Lowenhaupt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Tue Oct 11 12:43:41 2011 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:43:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Complexity Mathematics, the EU and Global Governance - from The Globalist Message-ID: <4E94723D.6000306@communisphere.com> Andrea Illy presents some relevant thoughts on global governance in Complexity Mathematics, the EU and Global Governance, from The Globalist http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9363. The focus is on the EU but lessons for the Internet might be found there as well. It starts: I am not a mathematician, but I have learned that we must grapple with some key concepts in order to prepare ourselves for the challenges that lie ahead for our civilization --- almost regardless of where we live. The first important principle to get our arms around is this: The more we grow, the more disorder we create. While this may sound like some anarchical idea, it really is the thermodynamic principle of entropy. Likewise, the more disorder that we have around, the more variables we create. As a result, we constantly create more complexity, because the definition of complexity is the interdependence of the many variables involved. Managing this complexity requires a completely different mental and scientific approach than the one we are used to. People tend to think in a linear fashion, simply because that's what we are used to doing. We humans are adept at, and used to, understanding three dimensions: length, width and height. Why is this significant? Because that is what typical linear mathematics captures. Once you surpass three variables in mathematics, however, then you start entering complexity mathematics, which is completely different. ... Best, Tom Lowenhaupt, Director Connecting.nyc Inc. P.S. We're sponsoring a discussion on governance of the .nyc TLD this Thursday from 10-11 AM, New York time. It's using Google's Hangout feature as follows: What is the governance process for the .nyc TLD? Is the multi-stakeholder model used by ICANN and the IGF appropriate for a city TLD? (Typically thought of as business, government, civic society.) How might this be adjusted for New York's needs? We'll discuss the governance of other civic communication channels - public access cable, radio, tv - and how a city TLD might be best governed. The topic will be addressed at our regular Thursday "Tea and the .nyc TLD" Hangout on Google +, for one hour between 10-11 AM. Go here --> Google+ Hangout . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Tue Oct 11 15:34:16 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:34:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Complexity Mathematics, the EU and Global Governance - from The Globalist In-Reply-To: References: <4E94723D.6000306@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Dear Uncle Tom, Great Fellows and Friends, +1 "Managing the complexity requires a completely different mental and Scientific approach than the one we are used to." What an excellent issue for research and brainstorming! Solutions within. Thank you. Accept my unreserved high esteemed regards! Sea On 11 Oct 2011 17:46, "Thomas Lowenhaupt" wrote: Andrea Illy presents some relevant thoughts on global governance in Complexity Mathematics, the EU and Global Governance, from The Globalist http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9363.The focus is on the EU but lessons for the Internet might be found there as well. It starts: I am not a mathematician, but I have learned that we must grapple with some key concepts in order to prepare ourselves for the challenges that lie ahead for our civilization — almost regardless of where we live. The first important principle to get our arms around is this: The more we grow, the more disorder we create. While this may sound like some anarchical idea, it really is the thermodynamic principle of entropy. Likewise, the more disorder that we have around, the more variables we create. As a result, we constantly create more complexity, because the definition of complexity is the interdependence of the many variables involved. Managing this complexity requires a completely different mental and scientific approach than the one we are used to. People tend to think in a linear fashion, simply because that’s what we are used to doing. We humans are adept at, and used to, understanding three dimensions: length, width and height. Why is this significant? Because that is what typical linear mathematics captures. Once you surpass three variables in mathematics, however, then you start entering complexity mathematics, which is completely different. ... Best, Tom Lowenhaupt, Director Connecting.nyc Inc. P.S. We're sponsoring a discussion on governance of the .nyc TLD this Thursday from 10-11 AM, New York time. It's using Google's Hangout feature as follows: What is the governance process for the .nyc TLD? Is the multi-stakeholder model used by ICANN and the IGF appropriate for a city TLD? (Typically thought of as business, government, civic society.) How might this be adjusted for New York's needs? We'll discuss the governance of other civic communication channels - public access cable, radio, tv - and how a city TLD might be best governed. The topic will be addressed at our regular Thursday "Tea and the .nyc TLD" Hangout on Google +, for one hour between 10-11 AM. Go here --> Google+ Hangout . ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 17:51:47 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:51:47 +1200 Subject: [governance] Azerbaijan Message-ID: Dear All, I found out today that Azerbaijan is applying for the Eastern European seat in the United Nations Security Council to be contested on 13 October, 2011 in the UN General Assembly. These are interesting developments. Best Regards, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Oct 11 17:56:16 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:56:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD201F4E9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> The IGF is not supposed to produce outcomes, but is supposed to increase understanding. [Milton L Mueller] I don't understand why this restriction applies to IGF but not, say, to IETF, ARIN, ICANN or APNIC. In other words, why can a bunch of people get together at an IETF meeting, come to an often difficult and painful agreement, and issue a standard, compliance with which is completely voluntary, and the IGF can't do the same? IGF has no binding legal or regulatory authority, unlike ICANN, so what is to be feared from allowing it to issue recommendations, as the WGIG did? I think it incumbent upon those who want a new body or bodies to spell out EXACTLY in which areas there are gaps that need filling, how such a new body would fill those gaps (and only those gaps). Clearly, a takeover of ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc by a multilateral body (as proposed by IBSA) will not fill any gaps. It's just a power play. [Milton L Mueller] Clearly it would be. But any attempt to tell the fairly balanced group at IGF that they cannot come to an agreement and issue recommendations is also a power play by status quo groups to keep others out of the game. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 18:02:25 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:02:25 +1200 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi Carlos, Please note that we are well capable for doing our own analysis and coming to our own independent conclusions and if that conclusion or set of inferences mirror others, then it is purely coincidental. It is not a criticism against the writers of the IBSA Summary but against the issues that were raised in the document. Also when invitations are issued for comments and submissions, one has to be prepared to hear views outside those of our own. Best, Sala On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > McTim, > > On 10/11/2011 03:43 AM, McTim wrote: > > I'll bite. > > > > I too am not in favor of a poll at this time (or at all, since our > > decisions are supposed to be based on a consensus model). > > > [...] > > The IGF is not supposed to produce outcomes, but is supposed to > > increase understanding. > > It does already produce *some* outcomes, through the various results > from workshops and similar parallel meetings. And the IGF might change, > why not? Doesn't the "technical community" like changes in paradigms? > > [...] > > > > Clearly, a takeover of ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc by a multilateral > > body (as proposed by IBSA) will not fill any gaps. It's just a > > power play. > > > > Now, this is really news to me, and I think I know English enough to > grasp what the by now famous IBSA doc said or did not say. There is not > even mention of any of these entities, which are of entirely different > natures in scope, mandate, incidence, decision-making, relation to gov > bodies etc etc. This was sparked by MM's furor expressed in an article > in the IGP when first read the doc, and some people keep parroting this. > Amazing! > > --c.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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 18:03:41 2011 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:03:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD201F4E9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD201F4E9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: +1 On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > The IGF is not supposed to produce outcomes, but is supposed to increase > understanding.**** > > * * > > *[Milton L Mueller] I don’t understand why this restriction applies to IGF > but not, say, to IETF, ARIN, ICANN or APNIC. In other words, why can a bunch > of people get together at an IETF meeting, come to an often difficult and > painful agreement, and issue a standard, compliance with which is completely > voluntary, and the IGF can’t do the same? IGF has no binding legal or > regulatory authority, unlike ICANN, so what is to be feared from allowing it > to issue recommendations, as the WGIG did? ***** > > ** ** > > I think it incumbent upon those who want a new body or bodies to spell out > EXACTLY in which areas there are gaps that need filling, how such a new body > would fill those gaps (and only those gaps).**** > > Clearly, a takeover of ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc by a multilateral body (as > proposed by IBSA) will not fill any gaps. It's just a power play.**** > > ** ** > > *[Milton L Mueller] Clearly it would be. But any attempt to tell the > fairly balanced group at IGF that they cannot come to an agreement and issue > recommendations is also a power play by status quo groups to keep others out > of the game. ***** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Oct 11 21:31:05 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:31:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] Voting for IGC Coordinator In-Reply-To: <4E94535A.9070804@communisphere.com> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> <4E94535A.9070804@communisphere.com> Message-ID: On 11/10/2011, at 10:31 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > I just cast my vote for coordinator and wanted to express my gratitude to all the candidates for presenting us with a rich choice. Also, if anyone has not received a ballot and expected to, please contact me off-list. Thanks! -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2212 bytes Desc: not available URL: From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 22:57:15 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:57:15 +1200 Subject: [governance] Certain default software settings can equate to :unfair or deceptive acts" Message-ID: Dear All The United States Federal Trade Commission has decided that certain default software settings can violate the law against “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” See http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/10/frostwire.shtm -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 00:23:13 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:23:13 +0300 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD201F4E9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD201F4E9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > The IGF is not supposed to produce outcomes, but is supposed to increase > understanding.**** > > * * > > *[Milton L Mueller] I don’t understand why this restriction applies to IGF > but not, say, to IETF, ARIN, ICANN or APNIC. In other words, why can a bunch > of people get together at an IETF meeting, come to an often difficult and > painful agreement, and issue a standard, compliance with which is completely > voluntary,* > Do you mean an RFC? BCP? These need to be published via the RFC Series Editor process. > * and the IGF can’t do the same? IGF has no binding legal or regulatory > authority, unlike ICANN, so what is to be feared from allowing it to issue > recommendations, as the WGIG did?* > creeping intergovernmentalism I think is to be feared. I think the national IGF could produce some kind of recommendation to a national authority. Regional and global IGFs producing rec would be less useful IMO. If the global IGF had a body (plenary?) that could come to a consensus on an issue, then some states would want that pushed to the UN GA for ratification, with all that entails. I think you also have a healthy skepticism about this type of outcome. > * ***** > > ** ** > > I think it incumbent upon those who want a new body or bodies to spell out > EXACTLY in which areas there are gaps that need filling, how such a new body > would fill those gaps (and only those gaps).**** > > Clearly, a takeover of ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc by a multilateral body (as > proposed by IBSA) will not fill any gaps. It's just a power play.**** > > ** ** > > *[Milton L Mueller] Clearly it would be. But any attempt to tell the > fairly balanced group at IGF that they cannot come to an agreement and issue > recommendations is also a power play by status quo groups to keep others out > of the game.* > or an attempt to hew to the TA mandate. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 00:34:25 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:34:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > McTim, > > On 10/11/2011 03:43 AM, McTim wrote: > > I'll bite. > > > > I too am not in favor of a poll at this time  (or at all, since our > > decisions are supposed to be based on a consensus model). > > > [...] > > The IGF is not supposed to produce outcomes, but is supposed to > > increase understanding. > > It does already produce *some* outcomes, through the various results > from workshops and similar parallel meetings. And the IGF might change, > why not? Doesn't the "technical community" like changes in paradigms? While I don't speak for the technical community I do know that changes in paradigms happen frequently in the tech community, witness the growth of IPv4 "markets" as just one recent example. > > [...] > > > > Clearly, a takeover of ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc by a multilateral > > body (as proposed by IBSA) will not fill any gaps.  It's just a > > power play. > > > > Now, this is really news to me, and I think I know English enough to > grasp what the by now famous IBSA doc said or did not say. This is the link that I have based my reaction to the proposal upon: http://www.culturalivre.org.br/artigos/IBSA_recommendations_Internet_Governance.pdf > > There is not > even mention of any of these entities, which are of entirely different > natures in scope, mandate, incidence, decision-making, relation to gov > bodies etc etc. I think you may have missed this bit then: "iii. integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting;" > > This was sparked by MM's furor expressed in an article > in the IGP when first read the doc, and some people keep parroting this. I rarely parrot MM ;-) -- 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 kabani at isd-rc.org Wed Oct 12 01:39:45 2011 From: kabani at isd-rc.org (Asif Kabani) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:39:45 +0500 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD201F4E9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD201F4E9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Friends, Greetings, Milton is right, I also agree with him that IGF cannot produce outcomes, It is the forum to create synergies and as Milton said increase understanding among various stakeholders. Asif Kabani On 12 October 2011 02:56, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > The IGF is not supposed to produce outcomes, but is supposed to increase > understanding.**** > > * * > > *[Milton L Mueller] I don’t understand why this restriction applies to IGF > but not, say, to IETF, ARIN, ICANN or APNIC. In other words, why can a bunch > of people get together at an IETF meeting, come to an often difficult and > painful agreement, and issue a standard, compliance with which is completely > voluntary, and the IGF can’t do the same? IGF has no binding legal or > regulatory authority, unlike ICANN, so what is to be feared from allowing it > to issue recommendations, as the WGIG did? ***** > > ** ** > > I think it incumbent upon those who want a new body or bodies to spell out > EXACTLY in which areas there are gaps that need filling, how such a new body > would fill those gaps (and only those gaps).**** > > Clearly, a takeover of ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc by a multilateral body (as > proposed by IBSA) will not fill any gaps. It's just a power play.**** > > ** ** > > *[Milton L Mueller] Clearly it would be. But any attempt to tell the > fairly balanced group at IGF that they cannot come to an agreement and issue > recommendations is also a power play by status quo groups to keep others out > of the game. ***** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Asif Kabani Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Oct 12 03:00:37 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:00:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD201F4E9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD201F4E9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD201F4E9 at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 21:56:16 on Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Milton L Mueller writes >[Milton L Mueller] I don?t understand why this restriction applies to >IGF but not, say, to IETF, ARIN, ICANN or APNIC. In other words, why >can a bunch of people get together at an IETF meeting, come to an often >difficult and painful agreement, and issue a standard, compliance with >which is completely voluntary, and the IGF can?t do the same? IGF has >no binding legal or regulatory authority, unlike ICANN, so what is to >be feared from allowing it to issue recommendations, as the WGIG did? I've always understood that there are two sides to this. Firstly, the IGF is sufficiently "close to the UN family" that people fear it could be become "too important to ignore" and be absorbed into the UN to become an intergovernmental institution, if it was producing recommendations with some traction. (It doesn't really matter who is advantaged and disadvantaged by those recommendations, the risk it putting the collective head too far above the parapet) Secondly, if it was producing negotiated outcomes (even if remaining "independent"), the process would rapidly move away from its current format of a relaxed place to meet and freely exchange ideas with people you wouldn't normally encounter, to a rather boring smoke-filled-room where people spend most of the week staring across the table at old adversaries, arguing over half a sentence in the output document. -- 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 KovenRonald at aol.com Wed Oct 12 05:20:36 2011 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 05:20:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? Message-ID: <2ae9a.67d3bd18.3bc6b5e4@aol.com> Dear All -- I don't see why IGF participants should have problems with IGF being the ultimate meeting-place for those interested in the development of the Internet, without serving as a decison-making body. Nobody seems to worry that Davos has no decision-making functions. It is nevertheless seen as an immensely useful forum. Everyone knew from the start what the IGF ground rules were. Rony Koven, World Press Freedom Committee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 07:59:12 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:59:12 -0300 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <2ae9a.67d3bd18.3bc6b5e4@aol.com> References: <2ae9a.67d3bd18.3bc6b5e4@aol.com> Message-ID: Dear Rony and all, First, let's not mix-up topics. This thread began about Enhanced cooperation. Not we are talking about IGF improvements. Two related, but different things. With regards to IGF improvements, I really think we should avoid a false-dichtomy: binding X non biding IGF. There is no one in the Working Group on IGF improvements (or even here on the list, as far as I could notice) that would like to change the nature of the IGF in order for it to make decisions. What is being argued, briefly is: 1 - The outputs currently produced by the IGF (summary of the chair, summaries by workshop organizers, IGF book) are valuable. However, they do not serve as input for policy-making bodies, especially on the global level (ITU, UNESCO, WIPO, OECD, etc). Honestly, how many of us have stopped to read workshop summaries? 2 - Because of that, many actors are proposing that the IGF produces more concrete outcomes: that we map policy options (plural) that emerge from our discussions. They should represent different views on an issue, but they should also help to tackle a policy-problem by pointing out possible ways to move forward. We have already started to move on that direction, when we decided that main-sessions and workshops should be organized around questions. These questions help us to stay focused on the problem and to arrive in possible answers (policy options) for it. 3 - Improve communication: cluster and communicate the results of our discussions (policy-options) to relevant bodies. Request for comments from their side. Given the fact the the meeting of the working group on IGF improvements is coming soon, it would be great it we could debate proposals that really are on the table. Please, let's not waste any more time with biding x non-binding IGF. For those who would like to have more information about the working group on improvements, there is a website where all information is archived: http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/ I would also recommend reading the proposal that has been advanced by India, since it is very comprehensive on the issue of outcomes. It is a good starting point for debate. You may want to see, especially, the annex that summarizes the main points in the document: http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Contributions/M1/India.pdf Best wishes, Marília On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:20 AM, wrote: > Dear All -- > > I don't see why IGF participants should have problems with IGF being the > ultimate meeting-place for those interested in the development of the > Internet, without serving as a decison-making body. > > Nobody seems to worry that Davos has no decision-making functions. It is > nevertheless seen as an immensely useful forum. > > Everyone knew from the start what the IGF ground rules were. > > > Rony Koven, World Press Freedom Committee > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 09:01:19 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 01:01:19 +1200 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <2ae9a.67d3bd18.3bc6b5e4@aol.com> Message-ID: This is what I call an interesting case of a "Kansas city shuffle". On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear Rony and all, > > First, let's not mix-up topics. This thread began about Enhanced > cooperation. Not we are talking about IGF improvements. Two related, but > different things. > > With regards to IGF improvements, I really think we should avoid a > false-dichtomy: binding X non biding IGF. There is no one in the Working > Group on IGF improvements (or even here on the list, as far as I could > notice) that would like to change the nature of the IGF in order for it to > make decisions. > > What is being argued, briefly is: > > 1 - The outputs currently produced by the IGF (summary of the chair, > summaries by workshop organizers, IGF book) are valuable. However, they do > not serve as input for policy-making bodies, especially on the global level > (ITU, UNESCO, WIPO, OECD, etc). Honestly, how many of us have stopped to > read workshop summaries? > > 2 - Because of that, many actors are proposing that the IGF produces more > concrete outcomes: that we map policy options (plural) that emerge from our > discussions. They should represent different views on an issue, but they > should also help to tackle a policy-problem by pointing out possible ways to > move forward. We have already started to move on that direction, when we > decided that main-sessions and workshops should be organized around > questions. These questions help us to stay focused on the problem and to > arrive in possible answers (policy options) for it. > > 3 - Improve communication: cluster and communicate the results of our > discussions (policy-options) to relevant bodies. Request for comments from > their side. > > Given the fact the the meeting of the working group on IGF improvements is > coming soon, it would be great it we could debate proposals that really are > on the table. Please, let's not waste any more time with biding x > non-binding IGF. > > For those who would like to have more information about the working group > on improvements, there is a website where all information is archived: > http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/ > > I would also recommend reading the proposal that has been advanced by > India, since it is very comprehensive on the issue of outcomes. It is a good > starting point for debate. You may want to see, especially, the annex that > summarizes the main points in the document: > http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Contributions/M1/India.pdf > > Best wishes, > Marília > > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:20 AM, wrote: > >> Dear All -- >> >> I don't see why IGF participants should have problems with IGF being the >> ultimate meeting-place for those interested in the development of the >> Internet, without serving as a decison-making body. >> >> Nobody seems to worry that Davos has no decision-making functions. It is >> nevertheless seen as an immensely useful forum. >> >> Everyone knew from the start what the IGF ground rules were. >> >> >> Rony Koven, World Press Freedom Committee >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Oct 12 09:45:59 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:45:59 -0300 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4E959A17.4080103@cafonso.ca> Grande McTim, On 10/12/2011 01:34 AM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> McTim, >> >> On 10/11/2011 03:43 AM, McTim wrote: >>> I'll bite. >>> >>> I too am not in favor of a poll at this time (or at all, since our >>> decisions are supposed to be based on a consensus model). >>> >> [...] >>> The IGF is not supposed to produce outcomes, but is supposed to >>> increase understanding. >> >> It does already produce *some* outcomes, through the various results >> from workshops and similar parallel meetings. And the IGF might change, >> why not? Doesn't the "technical community" like changes in paradigms? > > > While I don't speak for the technical community I do know that changes > in paradigms happen frequently in the tech community, witness the > growth of IPv4 "markets" as just one recent example. Yes! This is the point! Why are some people of that community so afraid to touch the "play lame" paradigm of the IGF, usually in tune with the business community? > >> >> [...] >>> >>> Clearly, a takeover of ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc by a multilateral >>> body (as proposed by IBSA) will not fill any gaps. It's just a >>> power play. >>> >> >> Now, this is really news to me, and I think I know English enough to >> grasp what the by now famous IBSA doc said or did not say. > > This is the link that I have based my reaction to the proposal upon: > http://www.culturalivre.org.br/artigos/IBSA_recommendations_Internet_Governance.pdf > >> >> There is not >> even mention of any of these entities, which are of entirely different >> natures in scope, mandate, incidence, decision-making, relation to gov >> bodies etc etc. > > I think you may have missed this bit then: > > "iii. integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and > operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards > setting;" No mention of the specific entities and forms in which anything would effectively be done. Also, this "integration" or "oversight", in many forms, has been part of the life of standards in any sector, much before the Internet came to be, from screws to plugs to... And, of course, being of entirely different natures and under distinct institutional arrangements, this can mean anything. This is also why I insist we take up the generalistic IBSA draft and try and propose changes, additions, modifications etc as the three government reps are expecting from us. > > >> >> This was sparked by MM's furor expressed in an article >> in the IGP when first read the doc, and some people keep parroting this. > > I rarely parrot MM ;-) :) Cheers! --c.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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 09:46:07 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:46:07 -0300 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <2ae9a.67d3bd18.3bc6b5e4@aol.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > This is what I call an interesting case of a "Kansas city shuffle". > > Hi Sala, sorry, I am unfamiliar with this reference. What wikipedia told me did not help much: Kansas City shuffle is a song by jazz pianist Bennie Moten. It was recorded in 1926 in Chicago , Illinois and released on the Victor record label. The song refers to an advanced form of confidence game employing misdirection, subterfuge, and playing on the "mark's" arrogance and/or self-loathing. The relevance to a direction stated at the beginning of a situation has no bearing to the outcome. Therefore, if it was an important reaction to my message, I would like to ask you to elaborate. Thanks :) Marília > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Dear Rony and all, >> >> First, let's not mix-up topics. This thread began about Enhanced >> cooperation. Not we are talking about IGF improvements. Two related, but >> different things. >> >> With regards to IGF improvements, I really think we should avoid a >> false-dichtomy: binding X non biding IGF. There is no one in the Working >> Group on IGF improvements (or even here on the list, as far as I could >> notice) that would like to change the nature of the IGF in order for it to >> make decisions. >> >> What is being argued, briefly is: >> >> 1 - The outputs currently produced by the IGF (summary of the chair, >> summaries by workshop organizers, IGF book) are valuable. However, they do >> not serve as input for policy-making bodies, especially on the global level >> (ITU, UNESCO, WIPO, OECD, etc). Honestly, how many of us have stopped to >> read workshop summaries? >> >> 2 - Because of that, many actors are proposing that the IGF produces more >> concrete outcomes: that we map policy options (plural) that emerge from our >> discussions. They should represent different views on an issue, but they >> should also help to tackle a policy-problem by pointing out possible ways to >> move forward. We have already started to move on that direction, when we >> decided that main-sessions and workshops should be organized around >> questions. These questions help us to stay focused on the problem and to >> arrive in possible answers (policy options) for it. >> >> 3 - Improve communication: cluster and communicate the results of our >> discussions (policy-options) to relevant bodies. Request for comments from >> their side. >> >> Given the fact the the meeting of the working group on IGF improvements is >> coming soon, it would be great it we could debate proposals that really are >> on the table. Please, let's not waste any more time with biding x >> non-binding IGF. >> >> For those who would like to have more information about the working group >> on improvements, there is a website where all information is archived: >> http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/ >> >> I would also recommend reading the proposal that has been advanced by >> India, since it is very comprehensive on the issue of outcomes. It is a good >> starting point for debate. You may want to see, especially, the annex that >> summarizes the main points in the document: >> http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Contributions/M1/India.pdf >> >> Best wishes, >> Marília >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:20 AM, wrote: >> >>> Dear All -- >>> >>> I don't see why IGF participants should have problems with IGF being the >>> ultimate meeting-place for those interested in the development of the >>> Internet, without serving as a decison-making body. >>> >>> Nobody seems to worry that Davos has no decision-making functions. It is >>> nevertheless seen as an immensely useful forum. >>> >>> Everyone knew from the start what the IGF ground rules were. >>> >>> >>> Rony Koven, World Press Freedom Committee >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To 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 >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Oct 12 10:56:02 2011 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:56:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <4E959A17.4080103@cafonso.ca> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> <4E959A17.4080103@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <588A54BB-F989-4CF9-806F-3C87BA76BAE4@uzh.ch> Hi Carlos On Oct 12, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> Clearly, a takeover of ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc by a multilateral >>>> body (as proposed by IBSA) will not fill any gaps. It's just a >>>> power play. >>>> >>> >>> Now, this is really news to me, and I think I know English enough to >>> grasp what the by now famous IBSA doc said or did not say. >> >> This is the link that I have based my reaction to the proposal upon: >> http://www.culturalivre.org.br/artigos/IBSA_recommendations_Internet_Governance.pdf >> >>> >>> There is not >>> even mention of any of these entities, which are of entirely different >>> natures in scope, mandate, incidence, decision-making, relation to gov >>> bodies etc etc. >> >> I think you may have missed this bit then: >> >> "iii. integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and >> operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards >> setting;" > > No mention of the specific entities and forms in which anything would > effectively be done. So just to be clear then, are you saying that by "the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet," the IBSA document does NOT mean ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc? If so this would have been good to know when we were debating this very point in the CIR main session in Nairobi, it'd have relaxed some of the palpable clenching in the room... > Also, this "integration" or "oversight", in many > forms, has been part of the life of standards in any sector, much before > the Internet came to be, from screws to plugs to... And, of course, > being of entirely different natures and under distinct institutional > arrangements, this can mean anything. This is also why I insist we take > up the generalistic IBSA draft and try and propose changes, additions, > modifications etc as the three government reps are expecting from us. Ok, I'll take the bait and start... From the Rio recommendations paper, I suggest replacing: "In order to prevent fragmentation of the Internet, avoid disjointed policy making, increase participation and ensure stability and smooth functioning of the Internet, an appropriate body is urgently required in the UN system to coordinate and evolve coherent and integrated global public policies pertaining to the Internet." with "In order to prevent fragmentation of the Internet, avoid disjointed policy making, increase participation and ensure stability and smooth functioning of the Internet, significantly increased peer-to-peer multistakeholder dialogue and collaboration is required on those issues that are agreed to require integrated global public policies." By extension, I would strike: "It was further agreed that the new body should inter alia: be located within the UN system; be tasked to develop and establish international public policies with a view to ensuring coordination and coherence in cross-cutting Internet-related global issues; integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting; address developmental issues related to the internet; undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary, and be responsible for crisis management." I would then replace "The meeting agreed to prepare a detailed proposal outlining the modalities of the proposed new global Internet Governance body for consideration and approval of the IBSA Summit, scheduled to be held on October 18, 2011 in Durban, South Africa. This proposal could thereafter be presented at the 66th UN General Assembly in New York…in December 2010 [sic]" with "The IBSA governments commit to engaging the global community in open, peer-to-peer multistakeholder dialogue in order to a) identify concrete, specific issues on which action may be required, and b) explore new and innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration that could be used to address such issues. Such a dialogue shall be commenced online with an eye toward assembling a representative multistakeholder drafting team that would prepare a written proposal for consideration at the 2012 Internet Governance Forum." [Re: the above forms, one possible idea I raised in my workshop, on which there's been some subsequent discussion off-list, is to generalize elements of the AoC as a global framework. Would be interested in coming back to that down the line…] Finally, I would replace "As a first step, it recommended the establishment of an IBSA Internet Governance and Development Observatory at the earliest. The Observatory should be tasked to monitor developments on global Internet Governance and provide regular updates and analyses from the perspective of developing countries." "As a first step, IBSA governments agree to work with interested stakeholders from around the world to establish an Internet Governance and Development Observatory. The Observatory should be tasked with monitoring trends, aggregating ideas and information, and providing regular updates and analyses, with particular attention to the concerns of developing country governments and stakeholders. Such an observatory could be institutionally nested within the Internet Governance Forum." BTW I really like the observatory piece…as you may recall, Wolfgang and I included such a thing in the global governance section of the CS declaration at the 2003 WSIS summit in Geneva. It was also embodied in some of our 2004 proposals for what became the IGF... Hope this is helpful, Bill PS: I strongly agreed with your NCSG list posting :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Oct 12 11:15:35 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:15:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <588A54BB-F989-4CF9-806F-3C87BA76BAE4@uzh.ch> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> <4E959A17.4080103@cafonso.ca> <588A54BB-F989-4CF9-806F-3C87BA76BAE4@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4E95AF17.6090604@cafonso.ca> Now, this really helps, Bill! Excellent. Let us see how we can advance in this way. frt rgds --c.a. On 10/12/2011 11:56 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Carlos > > On Oct 12, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >>>>> Clearly, a takeover of ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc by a multilateral >>>>> body (as proposed by IBSA) will not fill any gaps. It's just a >>>>> power play. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Now, this is really news to me, and I think I know English enough to >>>> grasp what the by now famous IBSA doc said or did not say. >>> >>> This is the link that I have based my reaction to the proposal upon: >>> http://www.culturalivre.org.br/artigos/IBSA_recommendations_Internet_Governance.pdf >>> >>>> >>>> There is not >>>> even mention of any of these entities, which are of entirely different >>>> natures in scope, mandate, incidence, decision-making, relation to gov >>>> bodies etc etc. >>> >>> I think you may have missed this bit then: >>> >>> "iii. integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and >>> operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards >>> setting;" >> >> No mention of the specific entities and forms in which anything would >> effectively be done. > > So just to be clear then, are you saying that by "the bodies responsible > for technical and operational functioning of the Internet," the IBSA > document does NOT mean ICANN/IETF/W3C/RIRs, etc? If so this would have > been good to know when we were debating this very point in the CIR main > session in Nairobi, it'd have relaxed some of the palpable clenching in > the room... > >> Also, this "integration" or "oversight", in many >> forms, has been part of the life of standards in any sector, much before >> the Internet came to be, from screws to plugs to... And, of course, >> being of entirely different natures and under distinct institutional >> arrangements, this can mean anything. This is also why I insist we take >> up the generalistic IBSA draft and try and propose changes, additions, >> modifications etc as the three government reps are expecting from us. > > Ok, I'll take the bait and start... > > From the Rio recommendations paper, I suggest replacing: > > "In order to prevent fragmentation of the Internet, avoid disjointed > policy making, increase participation and ensure stability and smooth > functioning of the Internet, an appropriate body is urgently required > in the UN system to coordinate and evolve coherent and integrated global > public policies pertaining to the Internet." > > with > > "In order to prevent fragmentation of the Internet, avoid disjointed > policy making, increase participation and ensure stability and smooth > functioning of the Internet, significantly increased peer-to-peer > multistakeholder dialogue and collaboration is required on those issues > that are agreed to require integrated global public policies." > > By extension, I would strike: > > "It was further agreed that the new body should inter alia: > > * be located within the UN system; > * be tasked to develop and establish international public policies > with a view to ensuring coordination and coherence in > cross-cutting Internet-related global issues; > * integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and > operational functioning of the Internet, including global > standards setting; > * address developmental issues related to the internet; > * undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary, and > * be responsible for crisis management." > > I would then replace > > "The meeting agreed to prepare a detailed proposal outlining the > modalities of the proposed new global Internet Governance body for > consideration and approval of the IBSA Summit, scheduled to be held on > October 18, 2011 in Durban, South Africa. This proposal could > thereafter be presented at the 66th UN General Assembly in New York…in > December 2010 [sic]" > > with > > "The IBSA governments commit to engaging the global community in > open, peer-to-peer multistakeholder dialogue in order to a) identify > concrete, specific issues on which action may be required, and b) > explore new and innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration that > could be used to address such issues. Such a dialogue shall be > commenced online with an eye toward assembling a > representative multistakeholder drafting team that would prepare a > written proposal for consideration at the 2012 Internet Governance Forum." > > [Re: the above forms, one possible idea I raised in my workshop, on > which there's been some subsequent discussion off-list, is to generalize > elements of the AoC as a global framework. Would be interested in > coming back to that down the line…] > > Finally, I would replace > > "As a first step, it recommended the establishment of an IBSA Internet > Governance and Development Observatory at the earliest. The Observatory > should be tasked to monitor developments on global Internet Governance > and provide regular updates and analyses from the perspective of > developing countries." > > "As a first step, IBSA governments agree to work with interested > stakeholders from around the world to establish an Internet Governance > and Development Observatory. The Observatory should be tasked with > monitoring trends, aggregating ideas and information, and providing > regular updates and analyses, with particular attention to the concerns > of developing country governments and stakeholders. Such an > observatory could be institutionally nested within the Internet > Governance Forum." > > BTW I really like the observatory piece…as you may recall, Wolfgang and > I included such a thing in the global governance section of the CS > declaration at the 2003 WSIS summit in Geneva. It was also embodied in > some of our 2004 proposals for what became the IGF... > > Hope this is helpful, > > Bill > > PS: I strongly agreed with your NCSG list posting :-) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 12 11:18:45 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:18:45 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> <4E959A17.4080103@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C601@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody it seems to me that the time has come again to have a very basic discussion about what have to be done by whom and where shuld it be done to keep the Internet open, free, stable, accessible for everybody, human rights oriented and to guarantee - as outlined in the Tunis Agenda - that governments have equal rights in determining Internet related public policy issues on a global level. 2011 has seen numerous approaches and initiativeas to answer questions which have raised in the six years since the adoption of the Tunis Agenda, which included IGF and EC as two interelated but distinct processes. A number of the proposals are new, others are old wine in net bottles. A number of issues from 2005 have been settled now. Other issues are still open. >From a CS point of view I think time is ripe now to take a more holistic approach, to define more in detail what the "respective role" of CS is in this global power struggle, what WE want to achieve in the discussions with governments and the private sector and how we shuld re-organize ourselves. We should first ask some very concrete questions before we propose general policy recommendations and legal actions. The various proposals on the table now (IBSA, COE, G8, OECD, OSCE, NATO, USA, EU, Shanghai-Group plus APC, Brazil, DC IRP plus ACTA and numerous national laws etc.) have something in common but are also rather different and contradict each other. Sometimes one government in one IGO supports a principle which is in contrast to another principle in a document adopted by another IGO where the same government is a member state. Look at Russia: As member of the G 8 it supports the principle of multistakeholder policy, but in the joint proposal with the Shanghai Group, it ignores it. Or Germany: It supports the more economic approach in the OECD and the more human rights aproach in the Council of Europe (which can lead to conflicts in concrete cases where you have to balance conflicting interests). The US supports freedom of expression but is critical with regard to Wikileaks, which is in the eyes of a lot of stakeholders a good example for freedom of expression. UK supports in the G8 a free Internet, but works at home to introduce drastic limitations, as France does it with HADOPI. And there are differences in approaches. Council of Europe has included civil society in drafting its declaration and was lstening to it until the very end. OECD included also civil society but ignored the voice in the last minute. Both OECD and COE were open for discussion in Nairobi. ISBA (in particular the Brazilian and Indian government) were also not afraid to face a multistakeholder discussion in Nairobi and they accepted critical interventions. But Russia and China rejected any form of multistakeholder debate on their proposal in Nairob. They just announced their plan of the Code of Conduct and did not answer any question. So we have also different discussion cultures on the governmental level. What I propose for our discussiomn is to seperate the issues for a more systematic structured discussion. I see three big issues: 1. the need to work towards a general (and global) "Framework of Commitments" (FoC) in form of a set of general principles as guidelines for "good behaviour" in the Internet (the so-called "constitutional moment", as it was discussed in Nairobi). Here one question is whether such a Declaration, code of conduct, compact or FoC should be elaborated by governments only or should it be a multistakeholder task. And the second question is who shoud do this: one of the existing bodies? the UN? the IGF? a new multistakeholder body (like the WGIG)? 2. the need to identify gaps in the existing institutional framework. The question here is which issues can NOT be settled within the existing governmental and non-governmental organisations. In case we can clear define what the missing link is what would be the right answer: tzo improve existing organisaitons by a reform process? To create a new body? What such a new body would do better and why? What would be the concrete mandate, the membership, the budget, the oversight? 3. the need to specify global public policies on specific issues like social networks, search engines, cloud computing, CIR management, IOT, intermediaries etc. with regard to privacy, freedom of expression, security, crime prevention, IPR etc. Here we have to identify the specific nature of the problem and to look for a concrete answer how to deal with this specific problem, whether a best practice guideline, a general political recommendation or a legally binding norm is necassary. And again: who should do this? We have to be very carefully that we first identify the issue before we start to develop policies and move to instruments. Here we need a case by case approach. There will be different solutions for different issues and at the end there will be a very diversified and distributed system of policies and mechanisms to implement (and to oversee/review) those policies. 4. the need to develop further a multistakeholder oversight mechanism. There new AoC review mechanism is conceptually a good starter to rethink the traditional approach to oversight. We need oversight to strengthen transparency, legitimacy and accountability, but there is no need to have ONE oversight body for all Internet related public policy issues. Each issue probably needs a specifically designed oversight mechanism. And such a mechanism has to be designed on a multistakeholder basis. Unfortunately the first review under the AoC (ATRT) was done in a hurry and was not so impressive. But the proposed design is an interesting step into a new territory how oversight can be organized issue based, decentralized and on a multistakeholder basis. And BTW, who oversees bodies like ITU, WIPO and the UN? Part of this issue will be discussed in the IGF Imrpovment working group but CS and the Caucus should trs to find its own mechanisms to move foreward to make proposals to the various bodies. The letter to the UNGA (the Shanghai project) was a good starter. More has to be done. 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Oct 12 11:35:31 2011 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:35:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Next CSTD WG meeting scheduled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi On Oct 6, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > The next meeting of the CSTD WG for IGF improvement has been scheduled for 31 Oct until 02 Nov, in Geneva. Apparently, it will be open only for participants of the WG, but as the chair has changed, I think it could be useful to write to him and ask about the possibility of allowing observers in the room. Apparently the CSTD secretariat believes this to be a very highly sensitive and political process that should be restricted to members and existing participants. As such, a letter just from CS seems unlikely to have much impact. If, however, there was a joint letter with the technical and business communities asking for an acceptably sized peanut gallery of silent observers, and some member governments expressed support for the principle, we might get somewhere. Perhaps our coordinators could reach out to ISOC and ICC and see if there'd be any interest? The meeting's less than three weeks off, so anything would have to happen soon… Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 11:49:27 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:49:27 -0300 Subject: [governance] Next CSTD WG meeting scheduled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:35 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > > On Oct 6, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > The next meeting of the CSTD WG for IGF improvement has been scheduled for > 31 Oct until 02 Nov, in Geneva. Apparently, it will be open only for > participants of the WG, but as the chair has changed, I think it could be > useful to write to him and ask about the possibility of allowing observers > in the room. > > > Apparently the CSTD secretariat believes this to be a very highly sensitive > and political process that should be restricted to members and existing > participants. As such, a letter just from CS seems unlikely to have much > impact. If, however, there was a joint letter with the technical and > business communities asking for an acceptably sized peanut gallery of silent > observers, and some member governments expressed support for the principle, > we might get somewhere. Perhaps our coordinators could reach out to ISOC > and ICC and see if there'd be any interest? The meeting's less than three > weeks off, so anything would have to happen soon… > > Bill > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Oct 12 13:04:22 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:04:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Next CSTD WG meeting scheduled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E95C896.4020501@apc.org> I think it would be good go suggest that some Geneva-based CS attend. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend as there is no financial support available and APC does not any project funds that can go towards covering my participation. Marilia, Parminder, will you be there? Anriette On 12/10/11 17:49, Marilia Maciel wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:35 PM, William Drake > wrote: > > Hi > > > On Oct 6, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> The next meeting of the CSTD WG for IGF improvement has been >> scheduled for 31 Oct until 02 Nov, in Geneva. Apparently, it will >> be open only for participants of the WG, but as the chair has >> changed, I think it could be useful to write to him and ask about >> the possibility of allowing observers in the room. > > Apparently the CSTD secretariat believes this to be a very highly > sensitive and political process that should be restricted to members > and existing participants. As such, a letter just from CS seems > unlikely to have much impact. If, however, there was a joint letter > with the technical and business communities asking for an acceptably > sized peanut gallery of silent observers, and some member > governments expressed support for the principle, we might get > somewhere. Perhaps our coordinators could reach out to ISOC and ICC > and see if there'd be any interest? The meeting's less than three > weeks off, so anything would have to happen soon… > > Bill > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 13:15:42 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:15:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] Next CSTD WG meeting scheduled In-Reply-To: <4E95C896.4020501@apc.org> References: <4E95C896.4020501@apc.org> Message-ID: Hello Anriette, These is unfortunate news... I hope there is still some other way out... I think I will be there, although the issue of the ticket is still not resolved: CSTD Secretariat agreed to cover expenses, but the booking is taking longer than expected and as far as I understand their internal deadline to buy the ticket has already passed. Hope to have a more clear position before Friday. Marília On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > I think it would be good go suggest that some Geneva-based CS attend. > Unfortunately I will not be able to attend as there is no financial > support available and APC does not any project funds that can go towards > covering my participation. > > Marilia, Parminder, will you be there? > > Anriette > > > On 12/10/11 17:49, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > +1 > > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:35 PM, William Drake > > wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > > > On Oct 6, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > >> The next meeting of the CSTD WG for IGF improvement has been > >> scheduled for 31 Oct until 02 Nov, in Geneva. Apparently, it will > >> be open only for participants of the WG, but as the chair has > >> changed, I think it could be useful to write to him and ask about > >> the possibility of allowing observers in the room. > > > > Apparently the CSTD secretariat believes this to be a very highly > > sensitive and political process that should be restricted to members > > and existing participants. As such, a letter just from CS seems > > unlikely to have much impact. If, however, there was a joint letter > > with the technical and business communities asking for an acceptably > > sized peanut gallery of silent observers, and some member > > governments expressed support for the principle, we might get > > somewhere. Perhaps our coordinators could reach out to ISOC and ICC > > and see if there'd be any interest? The meeting's less than three > > weeks off, so anything would have to happen soon… > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Oct 12 13:53:20 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:53:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Next CSTD WG meeting scheduled In-Reply-To: References: <4E95C896.4020501@apc.org> Message-ID: <4E95D410.8040206@apc.org> Well.. at least they have some support for civil society. They told me they had none. But this might be because they supported my travel to CSTD earlier this year. Anyway.. I will participate remotely. Anriette On 12/10/11 19:15, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hello Anriette, > > These is unfortunate news... I hope there is still some other way out... > > I think I will be there, although the issue of the ticket is still not > resolved: CSTD Secretariat agreed to cover expenses, but the booking is > taking longer than expected and as far as I understand their internal > deadline to buy the ticket has already passed. Hope to have a more clear > position before Friday. > > Marília > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > I think it would be good go suggest that some Geneva-based CS attend. > Unfortunately I will not be able to attend as there is no financial > support available and APC does not any project funds that can go towards > covering my participation. > > Marilia, Parminder, will you be there? > > Anriette > > > On 12/10/11 17:49, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > +1 > > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:35 PM, William Drake > > > >> wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > > > On Oct 6, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > >> The next meeting of the CSTD WG for IGF improvement has been > >> scheduled for 31 Oct until 02 Nov, in Geneva. Apparently, it will > >> be open only for participants of the WG, but as the chair has > >> changed, I think it could be useful to write to him and ask about > >> the possibility of allowing observers in the room. > > > > Apparently the CSTD secretariat believes this to be a very highly > > sensitive and political process that should be restricted to > members > > and existing participants. As such, a letter just from CS seems > > unlikely to have much impact. If, however, there was a joint > letter > > with the technical and business communities asking for an > acceptably > > sized peanut gallery of silent observers, and some member > > governments expressed support for the principle, we might get > > somewhere. Perhaps our coordinators could reach out to ISOC > and ICC > > and see if there'd be any interest? The meeting's less than three > > weeks off, so anything would have to happen soon… > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Oct 12 22:50:56 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:50:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Next CSTD WG meeting scheduled In-Reply-To: <4E95D410.8040206@apc.org> References: <4E95C896.4020501@apc.org> <4E95D410.8040206@apc.org> Message-ID: I will go to Geneva, though there is no funding support from CSTD since I am from developed country. I have squeezed my research budget to cover the extra expenses. Anyway, yes, I would propose CSTD WG Chair to allow observers to stay in the same room, non-contributing, except when Chair allows, maybe. As for ISOC and ICC, it's worth to try, I agree. izumi 2011/10/13 Anriette Esterhuysen : > Well.. at least they have some support for civil society. They told me > they had none. But this might be because they supported my travel to > CSTD earlier this year. > > Anyway.. I will participate remotely. > > Anriette > > > > On 12/10/11 19:15, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> Hello Anriette, >> >> These is unfortunate news... I hope there is still some other way out... >> >> I think I will be there, although the issue of the ticket is still not >> resolved: CSTD Secretariat agreed to cover expenses, but the booking is >> taking longer than expected and as far as I understand their internal >> deadline to buy the ticket has already passed. Hope to have a more clear >> position before Friday. >> >> Marília >> >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: >> >>     I think it would be good go suggest that some Geneva-based CS attend. >>     Unfortunately I will not be able to attend as there is no financial >>     support available and APC does not any project funds that can go towards >>     covering my participation. >> >>     Marilia, Parminder, will you be there? >> >>     Anriette >> >> >>     On 12/10/11 17:49, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>     > +1 >>     > >>     > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:35 PM, William Drake >>     >>     > >> wrote: >>     > >>     >     Hi >>     > >>     > >>     >     On Oct 6, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>     > >>     >>     The next meeting of the CSTD WG for IGF improvement has been >>     >>     scheduled for 31 Oct until 02 Nov, in Geneva. Apparently, it will >>     >>     be open only for participants of the WG, but as the chair has >>     >>     changed, I think it could be useful to write to him and ask about >>     >>     the possibility of allowing observers in the room. >>     > >>     >     Apparently the CSTD secretariat believes this to be a very highly >>     >     sensitive and political process that should be restricted to >>     members >>     >     and existing participants.  As such, a letter just from CS seems >>     >     unlikely to have much impact.  If, however, there was a joint >>     letter >>     >     with the technical and business communities asking for an >>     acceptably >>     >     sized peanut gallery of silent observers, and some member >>     >     governments expressed support for the principle, we might get >>     >     somewhere.  Perhaps our coordinators could reach out to ISOC >>     and ICC >>     >     and see if there'd be any interest?  The meeting's less than three >>     >     weeks off, so anything would have to happen soon… >>     > >>     >     Bill >>     > >>     > >>     > >>     > >>     > -- >>     > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >>     > FGV Direito Rio >>     > >>     > Center for Technology and Society >>     > Getulio Vargas Foundation >>     > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> >>     -- >>     ------------------------------------------------------ >>     anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>     executive director, association for progressive communications >>     www.apc.org >>     po box 29755, melville 2109 >>     south africa >>     tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>     ____________________________________________________________ >>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>         governance at lists.cpsr.org >>     To be removed from the list, visit: >>         http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>     For all other list information and functions, see: >>         http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>         http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for Technology and Society >> Getulio Vargas Foundation >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > --                         >> 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 sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Thu Oct 13 01:17:55 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 06:17:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Next CSTD WG meeting scheduled In-Reply-To: References: <4E95C896.4020501@apc.org> <4E95D410.8040206@apc.org> Message-ID: +1 Sea On 13 Oct 2011 03:51, "Izumi AIZU" wrote: I will go to Geneva, though there is no funding support from CSTD since I am from developed country. I have squeezed my research budget to cover the extra expenses. Anyway, yes, I would propose CSTD WG Chair to allow observers to stay in the same room, non-contributing, except when Chair allows, maybe. As for ISOC and ICC, it's worth to try, I agree. izumi 2011/10/13 Anriette Esterhuysen : > Well.. at least they have some support for civil society. They told me > they had none. But this m... -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscrib... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Thu Oct 13 01:16:35 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 06:16:35 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C601@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> <4E959A17.4080103@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C601@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear All, Excellent analysis from Wolfgang and others! Hope we can assemble very good statement from the inputs so far? Dr. Jeremy looking up for a daft statement. Thank you. Sea On 12 Oct 2011 16:35, ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: Hi everybody it seems to me that the time has come again to have a very basic discussion about what have to be done by whom and where shuld it be done to keep the Internet open, free, stable, accessible for everybody, human rights oriented and to guarantee - as outlined in the Tunis Agenda - that governments have equal rights in determining Internet related public policy issues on a global level. 2011 has seen numerous approaches and initiativeas to answer questions which have raised in the six years since the adoption of the Tunis Agenda, which included IGF and EC as two interelated but distinct processes. A number of the proposals are new, others are old wine in net bottles. A number of issues from 2005 have been settled now. Other issues are still open. From a CS point of view I think time is ripe now to take a more holistic approach, to define more in detail what the "respective role" of CS is in this global power struggle, what WE want to achieve in the discussions with governments and the private sector and how we shuld re-organize ourselves. We should first ask some very concrete questions before we propose general policy recommendations and legal actions. The various proposals on the table now (IBSA, COE, G8, OECD, OSCE, NATO, USA, EU, Shanghai-Group plus APC, Brazil, DC IRP plus ACTA and numerous national laws etc.) have something in common but are also rather different and contradict each other. Sometimes one government in one IGO supports a principle which is in contrast to another principle in a document adopted by another IGO where the same government is a member state. Look at Russia: As member of the G 8 it supports the principle of multistakeholder policy, but in the joint proposal with the Shanghai Group, it ignores it. Or Germany: It supports the more economic approach in the OECD and the more human rights aproach in the Council of Europe (which can lead to conflicts in concrete cases where you have to balance conflicting interests). The US supports freedom of expression but is critical with regard to Wikileaks, which is in the eyes of a lot of stakeholders a good example for freedom of expression. UK supports in the G8 a free Internet, but works at home to introduce drastic limitations, as France does it with HADOPI. And there are differences in approaches. Council of Europe has included civil society in drafting its declaration and was lstening to it until the very end. OECD included also civil society but ignored the voice in the last minute. Both OECD and COE were open for discussion in Nairobi. ISBA (in particular the Brazilian and Indian government) were also not afraid to face a multistakeholder discussion in Nairobi and they accepted critical interventions. But Russia and China rejected any form of multistakeholder debate on their proposal in Nairob. They just announced their plan of the Code of Conduct and did not answer any question. So we have also different discussion cultures on the governmental level. What I propose for our discussiomn is to seperate the issues for a more systematic structured discussion. I see three big issues: 1. the need to work towards a general (and global) "Framework of Commitments" (FoC) in form of a set of general principles as guidelines for "good behaviour" in the Internet (the so-called "constitutional moment", as it was discussed in Nairobi). Here one question is whether such a Declaration, code of conduct, compact or FoC should be elaborated by governments only or should it be a multistakeholder task. And the second question is who shoud do this: one of the existing bodies? the UN? the IGF? a new multistakeholder body (like the WGIG)? 2. the need to identify gaps in the existing institutional framework. The question here is which issues can NOT be settled within the existing governmental and non-governmental organisations. In case we can clear define what the missing link is what would be the right answer: tzo improve existing organisaitons by a reform process? To create a new body? What such a new body would do better and why? What would be the concrete mandate, the membership, the budget, the oversight? 3. the need to specify global public policies on specific issues like social networks, search engines, cloud computing, CIR management, IOT, intermediaries etc. with regard to privacy, freedom of expression, security, crime prevention, IPR etc. Here we have to identify the specific nature of the problem and to look for a concrete answer how to deal with this specific problem, whether a best practice guideline, a general political recommendation or a legally binding norm is necassary. And again: who should do this? We have to be very carefully that we first identify the issue before we start to develop policies and move to instruments. Here we need a case by case approach. There will be different solutions for different issues and at the end there will be a very diversified and distributed system of policies and mechanisms to implement (and to oversee/review) those policies. 4. the need to develop further a multistakeholder oversight mechanism. There new AoC review mechanism is conceptually a good starter to rethink the traditional approach to oversight. We need oversight to strengthen transparency, legitimacy and accountability, but there is no need to have ONE oversight body for all Internet related public policy issues. Each issue probably needs a specifically designed oversight mechanism. And such a mechanism has to be designed on a multistakeholder basis. Unfortunately the first review under the AoC (ATRT) was done in a hurry and was not so impressive. But the proposed design is an interesting step into a new territory how oversight can be organized issue based, decentralized and on a multistakeholder basis. And BTW, who oversees bodies like ITU, WIPO and the UN? Part of this issue will be discussed in the IGF Imrpovment working group but CS and the Caucus should trs to find its own mechanisms to move foreward to make proposals to the various bodies. The letter to the UNGA (the Shanghai project) was a good starter. More has to be done. Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscri... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 13 02:46:01 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:46:01 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> <4E959A17.4080103@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C601@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4E968929.9030200@ciroap.org> On 13/10/11 13:16, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > > Dear All, > > Excellent analysis from Wolfgang and others! > > Hope we can assemble very good statement from the inputs so far? > > Dr. Jeremy looking up for a daft statement. > I have already re-sent our last statement on enhanced cooperation to Romulo Neves of Brazil who promised to share it with his colleagues from South Africa and India ahead of the meeting. But I felt that there was not strong support for a new statement yet, such as the one that Sala had suggested we write after holding a straw poll (or in her words "white monkey" poll, which is a new expression for me!). Given the upcoming change in coordinators, this is another reason why it may now be best to wait until after the IBSA meeting before issuing a new statement. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 13 03:16:08 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:16:08 +1200 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C601@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> <4E959A17.4080103@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C601@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: This is excellent. Marilia, ignore my comment on the KCS. Following Professor Wolfgang's email, I would like to submit my perspective on the matter. I agree that we should ask concrete questions before making policy recommendation. I think also that people should dialogue on what those questions should be. I agree that a more holistic approach is needed. My illustrations are not visible in text so I am attaching my comments in a document. Whilst I may not agree with everything in it, I still think that the IBSA should be commended for stimulating the dialogue and discussions. My views are attached. Best Regards, Sala 2011/10/13 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Hi everybody > > it seems to me that the time has come again to have a very basic discussion > about what have to be done by whom and where shuld it be done to keep the > Internet open, free, stable, accessible for everybody, human rights oriented > and to guarantee - as outlined in the Tunis Agenda - that governments have > equal rights in determining Internet related public policy issues on a > global level. > > 2011 has seen numerous approaches and initiativeas to answer questions > which have raised in the six years since the adoption of the Tunis Agenda, > which included IGF and EC as two interelated but distinct processes. A > number of the proposals are new, others are old wine in net bottles. A > number of issues from 2005 have been settled now. Other issues are still > open. > > From a CS point of view I think time is ripe now to take a more holistic > approach, to define more in detail what the "respective role" of CS is in > this global power struggle, what WE want to achieve in the discussions with > governments and the private sector and how we shuld re-organize ourselves. > We should first ask some very concrete questions before we propose general > policy recommendations and legal actions. > > The various proposals on the table now (IBSA, COE, G8, OECD, OSCE, NATO, > USA, EU, Shanghai-Group plus APC, Brazil, DC IRP plus ACTA and numerous > national laws etc.) have something in common but are also rather different > and contradict each other. Sometimes one government in one IGO supports a > principle which is in contrast to another principle in a document adopted by > another IGO where the same government is a member state. Look at Russia: As > member of the G 8 it supports the principle of multistakeholder policy, but > in the joint proposal with the Shanghai Group, it ignores it. Or Germany: It > supports the more economic approach in the OECD and the more human rights > aproach in the Council of Europe (which can lead to conflicts in concrete > cases where you have to balance conflicting interests). The US supports > freedom of expression but is critical with regard to Wikileaks, which is in > the eyes of a lot of stakeholders a good example for freedom of expression. > UK supports in the G8 a free Internet, but works at home to introduce > drastic limitations, as France does it with HADOPI. > > And there are differences in approaches. Council of Europe has included > civil society in drafting its declaration and was lstening to it until the > very end. OECD included also civil society but ignored the voice in the last > minute. Both OECD and COE were open for discussion in Nairobi. ISBA (in > particular the Brazilian and Indian government) were also not afraid to face > a multistakeholder discussion in Nairobi and they accepted critical > interventions. But Russia and China rejected any form of multistakeholder > debate on their proposal in Nairob. They just announced their plan of the > Code of Conduct and did not answer any question. So we have also different > discussion cultures on the governmental level. > > What I propose for our discussiomn is to seperate the issues for a more > systematic structured discussion. I see three big issues: > > 1. the need to work towards a general (and global) "Framework of > Commitments" (FoC) in form of a set of general principles as guidelines for > "good behaviour" in the Internet (the so-called "constitutional moment", as > it was discussed in Nairobi). Here one question is whether such a > Declaration, code of conduct, compact or FoC should be elaborated by > governments only or should it be a multistakeholder task. And the second > question is who shoud do this: one of the existing bodies? the UN? the IGF? > a new multistakeholder body (like the WGIG)? > > 2. the need to identify gaps in the existing institutional framework. The > question here is which issues can NOT be settled within the existing > governmental and non-governmental organisations. In case we can clear define > what the missing link is what would be the right answer: tzo improve > existing organisaitons by a reform process? To create a new body? What such > a new body would do better and why? What would be the concrete mandate, the > membership, the budget, the oversight? > > 3. the need to specify global public policies on specific issues like > social networks, search engines, cloud computing, CIR management, IOT, > intermediaries etc. with regard to privacy, freedom of expression, security, > crime prevention, IPR etc. Here we have to identify the specific nature of > the problem and to look for a concrete answer how to deal with this specific > problem, whether a best practice guideline, a general political > recommendation or a legally binding norm is necassary. And again: who should > do this? We have to be very carefully that we first identify the issue > before we start to develop policies and move to instruments. Here we need a > case by case approach. There will be different solutions for different > issues and at the end there will be a very diversified and distributed > system of policies and mechanisms to implement (and to oversee/review) those > policies. > > 4. the need to develop further a multistakeholder oversight mechanism. > There new AoC review mechanism is conceptually a good starter to rethink the > traditional approach to oversight. We need oversight to strengthen > transparency, legitimacy and accountability, but there is no need to have > ONE oversight body for all Internet related public policy issues. Each issue > probably needs a specifically designed oversight mechanism. And such a > mechanism has to be designed on a multistakeholder basis. Unfortunately the > first review under the AoC (ATRT) was done in a hurry and was not so > impressive. But the proposed design is an interesting step into a new > territory how oversight can be organized issue based, decentralized and on a > multistakeholder basis. And BTW, who oversees bodies like ITU, WIPO and the > UN? > > Part of this issue will be discussed in the IGF Imrpovment working group > but CS and the Caucus should trs to find its own mechanisms to move foreward > to make proposals to the various bodies. The letter to the UNGA (the > Shanghai project) was a good starter. More has to be done. > > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Email to IGC List dated 13th October.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 179605 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 13 02:52:54 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:52:54 +1200 Subject: AW: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <4E968929.9030200@ciroap.org> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> <4E959A17.4080103@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C601@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4E968929.9030200@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I meant to say "Survey Monkey": http://help.surveymonkey.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/17/~/use-a-white-label-domain-of-www.research.net.-with-a-platinum-plan. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > ** > On 13/10/11 13:16, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > > Dear All, > > Excellent analysis from Wolfgang and others! > > Hope we can assemble very good statement from the inputs so far? > > Dr. Jeremy looking up for a daft statement. > > > I have already re-sent our last statement on enhanced cooperation to Romulo > Neves of Brazil who promised to share it with his colleagues from South > Africa and India ahead of the meeting. But I felt that there was not strong > support for a new statement yet, such as the one that Sala had suggested we > write after holding a straw poll (or in her words "white monkey" poll, which > is a new expression for me!). Given the upcoming change in coordinators, > this is another reason why it may now be best to wait until after the IBSA > meeting before issuing a new statement. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 13 06:27:57 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:27:57 +1200 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> <4E959A17.4080103@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C601@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Also as I write this the ITU Council meeting, some members are tweeting that drafting group to meet later today to discuss ToR for the dedicated group on international internet-related public policy issues Bulgaria: Along with USA, offers to participate in drafting group to finalise terms of reference for WG on Net Public Policy USA: Asks if it would be useful if ITU Sector Members be invited to join the WG on Net Public Policy Mali: Supports Canada's proposal that all stakeholders be involved in open consultations for WG on Net Public Policy Brazil: open consultations for Working Group on Net Public Policy a great way to engage with all stakeholders ITU Council discussing proposal by Saudi Arabia to turn Internet Dedicated Group into Working Group as mandated by On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > This is excellent. Marilia, ignore my comment on the KCS. Following > Professor Wolfgang's email, I would like to submit my perspective on the > matter. I agree that we should ask concrete questions before making policy > recommendation. I think also that people should dialogue on what those > questions should be. I agree that a more holistic approach is needed. My > illustrations are not visible in text so I am attaching my comments in a > document. > > Whilst I may not agree with everything in it, I still think that the IBSA > should be commended for stimulating the dialogue and discussions. My views > are attached. > > Best Regards, > Sala > > > 2011/10/13 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > >> Hi everybody >> >> it seems to me that the time has come again to have a very basic >> discussion about what have to be done by whom and where shuld it be done to >> keep the Internet open, free, stable, accessible for everybody, human rights >> oriented and to guarantee - as outlined in the Tunis Agenda - that >> governments have equal rights in determining Internet related public policy >> issues on a global level. >> >> 2011 has seen numerous approaches and initiativeas to answer questions >> which have raised in the six years since the adoption of the Tunis Agenda, >> which included IGF and EC as two interelated but distinct processes. A >> number of the proposals are new, others are old wine in net bottles. A >> number of issues from 2005 have been settled now. Other issues are still >> open. >> >> From a CS point of view I think time is ripe now to take a more holistic >> approach, to define more in detail what the "respective role" of CS is in >> this global power struggle, what WE want to achieve in the discussions with >> governments and the private sector and how we shuld re-organize ourselves. >> We should first ask some very concrete questions before we propose general >> policy recommendations and legal actions. >> >> The various proposals on the table now (IBSA, COE, G8, OECD, OSCE, NATO, >> USA, EU, Shanghai-Group plus APC, Brazil, DC IRP plus ACTA and numerous >> national laws etc.) have something in common but are also rather different >> and contradict each other. Sometimes one government in one IGO supports a >> principle which is in contrast to another principle in a document adopted by >> another IGO where the same government is a member state. Look at Russia: As >> member of the G 8 it supports the principle of multistakeholder policy, but >> in the joint proposal with the Shanghai Group, it ignores it. Or Germany: It >> supports the more economic approach in the OECD and the more human rights >> aproach in the Council of Europe (which can lead to conflicts in concrete >> cases where you have to balance conflicting interests). The US supports >> freedom of expression but is critical with regard to Wikileaks, which is in >> the eyes of a lot of stakeholders a good example for freedom of expression. >> UK supports in the G8 a free Internet, but works at home to introduce >> drastic limitations, as France does it with HADOPI. >> >> And there are differences in approaches. Council of Europe has included >> civil society in drafting its declaration and was lstening to it until the >> very end. OECD included also civil society but ignored the voice in the last >> minute. Both OECD and COE were open for discussion in Nairobi. ISBA (in >> particular the Brazilian and Indian government) were also not afraid to face >> a multistakeholder discussion in Nairobi and they accepted critical >> interventions. But Russia and China rejected any form of multistakeholder >> debate on their proposal in Nairob. They just announced their plan of the >> Code of Conduct and did not answer any question. So we have also different >> discussion cultures on the governmental level. >> >> What I propose for our discussiomn is to seperate the issues for a more >> systematic structured discussion. I see three big issues: >> >> 1. the need to work towards a general (and global) "Framework of >> Commitments" (FoC) in form of a set of general principles as guidelines for >> "good behaviour" in the Internet (the so-called "constitutional moment", as >> it was discussed in Nairobi). Here one question is whether such a >> Declaration, code of conduct, compact or FoC should be elaborated by >> governments only or should it be a multistakeholder task. And the second >> question is who shoud do this: one of the existing bodies? the UN? the IGF? >> a new multistakeholder body (like the WGIG)? >> >> 2. the need to identify gaps in the existing institutional framework. The >> question here is which issues can NOT be settled within the existing >> governmental and non-governmental organisations. In case we can clear define >> what the missing link is what would be the right answer: tzo improve >> existing organisaitons by a reform process? To create a new body? What such >> a new body would do better and why? What would be the concrete mandate, the >> membership, the budget, the oversight? >> >> 3. the need to specify global public policies on specific issues like >> social networks, search engines, cloud computing, CIR management, IOT, >> intermediaries etc. with regard to privacy, freedom of expression, security, >> crime prevention, IPR etc. Here we have to identify the specific nature of >> the problem and to look for a concrete answer how to deal with this specific >> problem, whether a best practice guideline, a general political >> recommendation or a legally binding norm is necassary. And again: who should >> do this? We have to be very carefully that we first identify the issue >> before we start to develop policies and move to instruments. Here we need a >> case by case approach. There will be different solutions for different >> issues and at the end there will be a very diversified and distributed >> system of policies and mechanisms to implement (and to oversee/review) those >> policies. >> >> 4. the need to develop further a multistakeholder oversight mechanism. >> There new AoC review mechanism is conceptually a good starter to rethink the >> traditional approach to oversight. We need oversight to strengthen >> transparency, legitimacy and accountability, but there is no need to have >> ONE oversight body for all Internet related public policy issues. Each issue >> probably needs a specifically designed oversight mechanism. And such a >> mechanism has to be designed on a multistakeholder basis. Unfortunately the >> first review under the AoC (ATRT) was done in a hurry and was not so >> impressive. But the proposed design is an interesting step into a new >> territory how oversight can be organized issue based, decentralized and on a >> multistakeholder basis. And BTW, who oversees bodies like ITU, WIPO and the >> UN? >> >> Part of this issue will be discussed in the IGF Imrpovment working group >> but CS and the Caucus should trs to find its own mechanisms to move foreward >> to make proposals to the various bodies. The letter to the UNGA (the >> Shanghai project) was a good starter. More has to be done. >> >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 13 06:33:07 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:33:07 +1200 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> <4E959A17.4080103@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C601@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: The ITU has an existing Dedicated Group on International Internet - related public policy issues, see: http://www.itu.int/council/groups/wsis/dedicatedgroup.html The materials are closed of course to *members* only. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Also as I write this the ITU Council meeting, some members are tweeting > that > > > drafting group to meet later today to discuss ToR for the dedicated group > on international internet-related public policy issues > > Bulgaria: Along with USA, offers to participate in drafting group to > finalise terms of reference for WG on Net Public Policy > > USA: Asks if it would be useful if ITU Sector Members be invited to join > the WG on Net Public Policy > > Mali: Supports Canada's proposal that all stakeholders be involved in open > consultations for WG on Net Public Policy > > Brazil: open consultations for Working Group on Net Public Policy a great > way to engage with all stakeholders > > ITU Council discussing proposal by Saudi Arabia to turn Internet Dedicated > Group into Working Group as mandated by > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is excellent. Marilia, ignore my comment on the KCS. Following >> Professor Wolfgang's email, I would like to submit my perspective on the >> matter. I agree that we should ask concrete questions before making policy >> recommendation. I think also that people should dialogue on what those >> questions should be. I agree that a more holistic approach is needed. My >> illustrations are not visible in text so I am attaching my comments in a >> document. >> >> Whilst I may not agree with everything in it, I still think that the IBSA >> should be commended for stimulating the dialogue and discussions. My views >> are attached. >> >> Best Regards, >> Sala >> >> >> 2011/10/13 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> >> >>> Hi everybody >>> >>> it seems to me that the time has come again to have a very basic >>> discussion about what have to be done by whom and where shuld it be done to >>> keep the Internet open, free, stable, accessible for everybody, human rights >>> oriented and to guarantee - as outlined in the Tunis Agenda - that >>> governments have equal rights in determining Internet related public policy >>> issues on a global level. >>> >>> 2011 has seen numerous approaches and initiativeas to answer questions >>> which have raised in the six years since the adoption of the Tunis Agenda, >>> which included IGF and EC as two interelated but distinct processes. A >>> number of the proposals are new, others are old wine in net bottles. A >>> number of issues from 2005 have been settled now. Other issues are still >>> open. >>> >>> From a CS point of view I think time is ripe now to take a more holistic >>> approach, to define more in detail what the "respective role" of CS is in >>> this global power struggle, what WE want to achieve in the discussions with >>> governments and the private sector and how we shuld re-organize ourselves. >>> We should first ask some very concrete questions before we propose general >>> policy recommendations and legal actions. >>> >>> The various proposals on the table now (IBSA, COE, G8, OECD, OSCE, NATO, >>> USA, EU, Shanghai-Group plus APC, Brazil, DC IRP plus ACTA and numerous >>> national laws etc.) have something in common but are also rather different >>> and contradict each other. Sometimes one government in one IGO supports a >>> principle which is in contrast to another principle in a document adopted by >>> another IGO where the same government is a member state. Look at Russia: As >>> member of the G 8 it supports the principle of multistakeholder policy, but >>> in the joint proposal with the Shanghai Group, it ignores it. Or Germany: It >>> supports the more economic approach in the OECD and the more human rights >>> aproach in the Council of Europe (which can lead to conflicts in concrete >>> cases where you have to balance conflicting interests). The US supports >>> freedom of expression but is critical with regard to Wikileaks, which is in >>> the eyes of a lot of stakeholders a good example for freedom of expression. >>> UK supports in the G8 a free Internet, but works at home to introduce >>> drastic limitations, as France does it with HADOPI. >>> >>> And there are differences in approaches. Council of Europe has included >>> civil society in drafting its declaration and was lstening to it until the >>> very end. OECD included also civil society but ignored the voice in the last >>> minute. Both OECD and COE were open for discussion in Nairobi. ISBA (in >>> particular the Brazilian and Indian government) were also not afraid to face >>> a multistakeholder discussion in Nairobi and they accepted critical >>> interventions. But Russia and China rejected any form of multistakeholder >>> debate on their proposal in Nairob. They just announced their plan of the >>> Code of Conduct and did not answer any question. So we have also different >>> discussion cultures on the governmental level. >>> >>> What I propose for our discussiomn is to seperate the issues for a more >>> systematic structured discussion. I see three big issues: >>> >>> 1. the need to work towards a general (and global) "Framework of >>> Commitments" (FoC) in form of a set of general principles as guidelines for >>> "good behaviour" in the Internet (the so-called "constitutional moment", as >>> it was discussed in Nairobi). Here one question is whether such a >>> Declaration, code of conduct, compact or FoC should be elaborated by >>> governments only or should it be a multistakeholder task. And the second >>> question is who shoud do this: one of the existing bodies? the UN? the IGF? >>> a new multistakeholder body (like the WGIG)? >>> >>> 2. the need to identify gaps in the existing institutional framework. The >>> question here is which issues can NOT be settled within the existing >>> governmental and non-governmental organisations. In case we can clear define >>> what the missing link is what would be the right answer: tzo improve >>> existing organisaitons by a reform process? To create a new body? What such >>> a new body would do better and why? What would be the concrete mandate, the >>> membership, the budget, the oversight? >>> >>> 3. the need to specify global public policies on specific issues like >>> social networks, search engines, cloud computing, CIR management, IOT, >>> intermediaries etc. with regard to privacy, freedom of expression, security, >>> crime prevention, IPR etc. Here we have to identify the specific nature of >>> the problem and to look for a concrete answer how to deal with this specific >>> problem, whether a best practice guideline, a general political >>> recommendation or a legally binding norm is necassary. And again: who should >>> do this? We have to be very carefully that we first identify the issue >>> before we start to develop policies and move to instruments. Here we need a >>> case by case approach. There will be different solutions for different >>> issues and at the end there will be a very diversified and distributed >>> system of policies and mechanisms to implement (and to oversee/review) those >>> policies. >>> >>> 4. the need to develop further a multistakeholder oversight mechanism. >>> There new AoC review mechanism is conceptually a good starter to rethink the >>> traditional approach to oversight. We need oversight to strengthen >>> transparency, legitimacy and accountability, but there is no need to have >>> ONE oversight body for all Internet related public policy issues. Each issue >>> probably needs a specifically designed oversight mechanism. And such a >>> mechanism has to be designed on a multistakeholder basis. Unfortunately the >>> first review under the AoC (ATRT) was done in a hurry and was not so >>> impressive. But the proposed design is an interesting step into a new >>> territory how oversight can be organized issue based, decentralized and on a >>> multistakeholder basis. And BTW, who oversees bodies like ITU, WIPO and the >>> UN? >>> >>> Part of this issue will be discussed in the IGF Imrpovment working group >>> but CS and the Caucus should trs to find its own mechanisms to move foreward >>> to make proposals to the various bodies. The letter to the UNGA (the >>> Shanghai project) was a good starter. More has to be done. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Thu Oct 13 13:43:31 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:43:31 -0600 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C601@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> <4E959A17.4080103@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C601@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang: Very good ideas. In respect to ITU, the oversight is defined in its foundational documents. The Plenipotenciary (PP) is the highest organ of decision, where many different elections are conducted, including those of the 5 elected officers. Between PPs, the Council is charged with overseeing the direction of the ITU. Additionally, the 3 sectors have global meetings every 4 years and have an advisory organ between them to help the respective elected officer. Among them, PP and WRC (radio) are treaty based. All the governance machinery is governmental based. Take into account ITU has been around since 1865. ITU has spaces of participation for the private sector in daily business and recently ITU has opened a new membership type for academia. Although some NGOs collaborate with ITU work, we need to learn how to work together better. Best, Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution 2011/10/12 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Hi everybody > > it seems to me that the time has come again to have a very basic discussion > about what have to be done by whom and where shuld it be done to keep the > Internet open, free, stable, accessible for everybody, human rights oriented > and to guarantee - as outlined in the Tunis Agenda - that governments have > equal rights in determining Internet related public policy issues on a > global level. > > 2011 has seen numerous approaches and initiativeas to answer questions > which have raised in the six years since the adoption of the Tunis Agenda, > which included IGF and EC as two interelated but distinct processes. A > number of the proposals are new, others are old wine in net bottles. A > number of issues from 2005 have been settled now. Other issues are still > open. > > From a CS point of view I think time is ripe now to take a more holistic > approach, to define more in detail what the "respective role" of CS is in > this global power struggle, what WE want to achieve in the discussions with > governments and the private sector and how we shuld re-organize ourselves. > We should first ask some very concrete questions before we propose general > policy recommendations and legal actions. > > The various proposals on the table now (IBSA, COE, G8, OECD, OSCE, NATO, > USA, EU, Shanghai-Group plus APC, Brazil, DC IRP plus ACTA and numerous > national laws etc.) have something in common but are also rather different > and contradict each other. Sometimes one government in one IGO supports a > principle which is in contrast to another principle in a document adopted by > another IGO where the same government is a member state. Look at Russia: As > member of the G 8 it supports the principle of multistakeholder policy, but > in the joint proposal with the Shanghai Group, it ignores it. Or Germany: It > supports the more economic approach in the OECD and the more human rights > aproach in the Council of Europe (which can lead to conflicts in concrete > cases where you have to balance conflicting interests). The US supports > freedom of expression but is critical with regard to Wikileaks, which is in > the eyes of a lot of stakeholders a good example for freedom of expression. > UK supports in the G8 a free Internet, but works at home to introduce > drastic limitations, as France does it with HADOPI. > > And there are differences in approaches. Council of Europe has included > civil society in drafting its declaration and was lstening to it until the > very end. OECD included also civil society but ignored the voice in the last > minute. Both OECD and COE were open for discussion in Nairobi. ISBA (in > particular the Brazilian and Indian government) were also not afraid to face > a multistakeholder discussion in Nairobi and they accepted critical > interventions. But Russia and China rejected any form of multistakeholder > debate on their proposal in Nairob. They just announced their plan of the > Code of Conduct and did not answer any question. So we have also different > discussion cultures on the governmental level. > > What I propose for our discussiomn is to seperate the issues for a more > systematic structured discussion. I see three big issues: > > 1. the need to work towards a general (and global) "Framework of > Commitments" (FoC) in form of a set of general principles as guidelines for > "good behaviour" in the Internet (the so-called "constitutional moment", as > it was discussed in Nairobi). Here one question is whether such a > Declaration, code of conduct, compact or FoC should be elaborated by > governments only or should it be a multistakeholder task. And the second > question is who shoud do this: one of the existing bodies? the UN? the IGF? > a new multistakeholder body (like the WGIG)? > > 2. the need to identify gaps in the existing institutional framework. The > question here is which issues can NOT be settled within the existing > governmental and non-governmental organisations. In case we can clear define > what the missing link is what would be the right answer: tzo improve > existing organisaitons by a reform process? To create a new body? What such > a new body would do better and why? What would be the concrete mandate, the > membership, the budget, the oversight? > > 3. the need to specify global public policies on specific issues like > social networks, search engines, cloud computing, CIR management, IOT, > intermediaries etc. with regard to privacy, freedom of expression, security, > crime prevention, IPR etc. Here we have to identify the specific nature of > the problem and to look for a concrete answer how to deal with this specific > problem, whether a best practice guideline, a general political > recommendation or a legally binding norm is necassary. And again: who should > do this? We have to be very carefully that we first identify the issue > before we start to develop policies and move to instruments. Here we need a > case by case approach. There will be different solutions for different > issues and at the end there will be a very diversified and distributed > system of policies and mechanisms to implement (and to oversee/review) those > policies. > > 4. the need to develop further a multistakeholder oversight mechanism. > There new AoC review mechanism is conceptually a good starter to rethink the > traditional approach to oversight. We need oversight to strengthen > transparency, legitimacy and accountability, but there is no need to have > ONE oversight body for all Internet related public policy issues. Each issue > probably needs a specifically designed oversight mechanism. And such a > mechanism has to be designed on a multistakeholder basis. Unfortunately the > first review under the AoC (ATRT) was done in a hurry and was not so > impressive. But the proposed design is an interesting step into a new > territory how oversight can be organized issue based, decentralized and on a > multistakeholder basis. And BTW, who oversees bodies like ITU, WIPO and the > UN? > > Part of this issue will be discussed in the IGF Imrpovment working group > but CS and the Caucus should trs to find its own mechanisms to move foreward > to make proposals to the various bodies. The letter to the UNGA (the > Shanghai project) was a good starter. More has to be done. > > Wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Oct 13 14:12:41 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:12:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> <4E959A17.4080103@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C601@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <71093D14-1131-4B21-857E-BAAF51CBC9DD@acm.org> Hi Miguel, I would think that until such time as the ITU opens itself up to civil society there is very little to be done other than to resist its initiatives at every turn. How can civil society possibly support an organization that ignores our existence. avri On 13 Oct 2011, at 13:43, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > Dear Wolfgang: > > Very good ideas. > > In respect to ITU, the oversight is defined in its foundational documents. The Plenipotenciary (PP) is the highest organ of decision, where many different elections are conducted, including those of the 5 elected officers. Between PPs, the Council is charged with overseeing the direction of the ITU. Additionally, the 3 sectors have global meetings every 4 years and have an advisory organ between them to help the respective elected officer. Among them, PP and WRC (radio) are treaty based. > > All the governance machinery is governmental based. Take into account ITU has been around since 1865. > > ITU has spaces of participation for the private sector in daily business and recently ITU has opened a new membership type for academia. Although some NGOs collaborate with ITU work, we need to learn how to work together better. > > Best, > > Miguel > > Disclaimer > My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution > > 2011/10/12 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Hi everybody > > it seems to me that the time has come again to have a very basic discussion about what have to be done by whom and where shuld it be done to keep the Internet open, free, stable, accessible for everybody, human rights oriented and to guarantee - as outlined in the Tunis Agenda - that governments have equal rights in determining Internet related public policy issues on a global level. > > 2011 has seen numerous approaches and initiativeas to answer questions which have raised in the six years since the adoption of the Tunis Agenda, which included IGF and EC as two interelated but distinct processes. A number of the proposals are new, others are old wine in net bottles. A number of issues from 2005 have been settled now. Other issues are still open. > > >From a CS point of view I think time is ripe now to take a more holistic approach, to define more in detail what the "respective role" of CS is in this global power struggle, what WE want to achieve in the discussions with governments and the private sector and how we shuld re-organize ourselves. We should first ask some very concrete questions before we propose general policy recommendations and legal actions. > > The various proposals on the table now (IBSA, COE, G8, OECD, OSCE, NATO, USA, EU, Shanghai-Group plus APC, Brazil, DC IRP plus ACTA and numerous national laws etc.) have something in common but are also rather different and contradict each other. Sometimes one government in one IGO supports a principle which is in contrast to another principle in a document adopted by another IGO where the same government is a member state. Look at Russia: As member of the G 8 it supports the principle of multistakeholder policy, but in the joint proposal with the Shanghai Group, it ignores it. Or Germany: It supports the more economic approach in the OECD and the more human rights aproach in the Council of Europe (which can lead to conflicts in concrete cases where you have to balance conflicting interests). The US supports freedom of expression but is critical with regard to Wikileaks, which is in the eyes of a lot of stakeholders a good example for freedom of expression. UK supports in the G8 a free Internet, but works at home to introduce drastic limitations, as France does it with HADOPI. > > And there are differences in approaches. Council of Europe has included civil society in drafting its declaration and was lstening to it until the very end. OECD included also civil society but ignored the voice in the last minute. Both OECD and COE were open for discussion in Nairobi. ISBA (in particular the Brazilian and Indian government) were also not afraid to face a multistakeholder discussion in Nairobi and they accepted critical interventions. But Russia and China rejected any form of multistakeholder debate on their proposal in Nairob. They just announced their plan of the Code of Conduct and did not answer any question. So we have also different discussion cultures on the governmental level. > > What I propose for our discussiomn is to seperate the issues for a more systematic structured discussion. I see three big issues: > > 1. the need to work towards a general (and global) "Framework of Commitments" (FoC) in form of a set of general principles as guidelines for "good behaviour" in the Internet (the so-called "constitutional moment", as it was discussed in Nairobi). Here one question is whether such a Declaration, code of conduct, compact or FoC should be elaborated by governments only or should it be a multistakeholder task. And the second question is who shoud do this: one of the existing bodies? the UN? the IGF? a new multistakeholder body (like the WGIG)? > > 2. the need to identify gaps in the existing institutional framework. The question here is which issues can NOT be settled within the existing governmental and non-governmental organisations. In case we can clear define what the missing link is what would be the right answer: tzo improve existing organisaitons by a reform process? To create a new body? What such a new body would do better and why? What would be the concrete mandate, the membership, the budget, the oversight? > > 3. the need to specify global public policies on specific issues like social networks, search engines, cloud computing, CIR management, IOT, intermediaries etc. with regard to privacy, freedom of expression, security, crime prevention, IPR etc. Here we have to identify the specific nature of the problem and to look for a concrete answer how to deal with this specific problem, whether a best practice guideline, a general political recommendation or a legally binding norm is necassary. And again: who should do this? We have to be very carefully that we first identify the issue before we start to develop policies and move to instruments. Here we need a case by case approach. There will be different solutions for different issues and at the end there will be a very diversified and distributed system of policies and mechanisms to implement (and to oversee/review) those policies. > > 4. the need to develop further a multistakeholder oversight mechanism. There new AoC review mechanism is conceptually a good starter to rethink the traditional approach to oversight. We need oversight to strengthen transparency, legitimacy and accountability, but there is no need to have ONE oversight body for all Internet related public policy issues. Each issue probably needs a specifically designed oversight mechanism. And such a mechanism has to be designed on a multistakeholder basis. Unfortunately the first review under the AoC (ATRT) was done in a hurry and was not so impressive. But the proposed design is an interesting step into a new territory how oversight can be organized issue based, decentralized and on a multistakeholder basis. And BTW, who oversees bodies like ITU, WIPO and the UN? > > Part of this issue will be discussed in the IGF Imrpovment working group but CS and the Caucus should trs to find its own mechanisms to move foreward to make proposals to the various bodies. The letter to the UNGA (the Shanghai project) was a good starter. More has to be done. > > Wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 13 19:18:54 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:18:54 +1200 Subject: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <71093D14-1131-4B21-857E-BAAF51CBC9DD@acm.org> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> <4E959A17.4080103@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C601@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <71093D14-1131-4B21-857E-BAAF51CBC9DD@acm.org> Message-ID: The Private Sector of which the International Chamber of Commerce would fall under also has reservations with the ITU seeking to broaden its role as far as internet governance is concerned. See: http://www.iccwbo.org/home/statements_rules/statements/2005/373_462_ITU.pdf I am not critiquing ITU merely saying that with global internet governance to relegate global policy formulation to one single institution is not a healthy governance model. On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi Miguel, > > I would think that until such time as the ITU opens itself up to civil > society there is very little to be done other than to resist its initiatives > at every turn. How can civil society possibly support an organization that > ignores our existence. > > avri > > On 13 Oct 2011, at 13:43, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > > > Dear Wolfgang: > > > > Very good ideas. > > > > In respect to ITU, the oversight is defined in its foundational > documents. The Plenipotenciary (PP) is the highest organ of decision, where > many different elections are conducted, including those of the 5 elected > officers. Between PPs, the Council is charged with overseeing the direction > of the ITU. Additionally, the 3 sectors have global meetings every 4 years > and have an advisory organ between them to help the respective elected > officer. Among them, PP and WRC (radio) are treaty based. > > > > All the governance machinery is governmental based. Take into account ITU > has been around since 1865. > > > > ITU has spaces of participation for the private sector in daily business > and recently ITU has opened a new membership type for academia. Although > some NGOs collaborate with ITU work, we need to learn how to work together > better. > > > > Best, > > > > Miguel > > > > Disclaimer > > My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my > employer or any other institution > > > > 2011/10/12 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > > Hi everybody > > > > it seems to me that the time has come again to have a very basic > discussion about what have to be done by whom and where shuld it be done to > keep the Internet open, free, stable, accessible for everybody, human rights > oriented and to guarantee - as outlined in the Tunis Agenda - that > governments have equal rights in determining Internet related public policy > issues on a global level. > > > > 2011 has seen numerous approaches and initiativeas to answer questions > which have raised in the six years since the adoption of the Tunis Agenda, > which included IGF and EC as two interelated but distinct processes. A > number of the proposals are new, others are old wine in net bottles. A > number of issues from 2005 have been settled now. Other issues are still > open. > > > > >From a CS point of view I think time is ripe now to take a more holistic > approach, to define more in detail what the "respective role" of CS is in > this global power struggle, what WE want to achieve in the discussions with > governments and the private sector and how we shuld re-organize ourselves. > We should first ask some very concrete questions before we propose general > policy recommendations and legal actions. > > > > The various proposals on the table now (IBSA, COE, G8, OECD, OSCE, NATO, > USA, EU, Shanghai-Group plus APC, Brazil, DC IRP plus ACTA and numerous > national laws etc.) have something in common but are also rather different > and contradict each other. Sometimes one government in one IGO supports a > principle which is in contrast to another principle in a document adopted by > another IGO where the same government is a member state. Look at Russia: As > member of the G 8 it supports the principle of multistakeholder policy, but > in the joint proposal with the Shanghai Group, it ignores it. Or Germany: It > supports the more economic approach in the OECD and the more human rights > aproach in the Council of Europe (which can lead to conflicts in concrete > cases where you have to balance conflicting interests). The US supports > freedom of expression but is critical with regard to Wikileaks, which is in > the eyes of a lot of stakeholders a good example for freedom of expression. > UK supports in the G8 a free Internet, but works at home to introduce > drastic limitations, as France does it with HADOPI. > > > > And there are differences in approaches. Council of Europe has included > civil society in drafting its declaration and was lstening to it until the > very end. OECD included also civil society but ignored the voice in the last > minute. Both OECD and COE were open for discussion in Nairobi. ISBA (in > particular the Brazilian and Indian government) were also not afraid to face > a multistakeholder discussion in Nairobi and they accepted critical > interventions. But Russia and China rejected any form of multistakeholder > debate on their proposal in Nairob. They just announced their plan of the > Code of Conduct and did not answer any question. So we have also different > discussion cultures on the governmental level. > > > > What I propose for our discussiomn is to seperate the issues for a more > systematic structured discussion. I see three big issues: > > > > 1. the need to work towards a general (and global) "Framework of > Commitments" (FoC) in form of a set of general principles as guidelines for > "good behaviour" in the Internet (the so-called "constitutional moment", as > it was discussed in Nairobi). Here one question is whether such a > Declaration, code of conduct, compact or FoC should be elaborated by > governments only or should it be a multistakeholder task. And the second > question is who shoud do this: one of the existing bodies? the UN? the IGF? > a new multistakeholder body (like the WGIG)? > > > > 2. the need to identify gaps in the existing institutional framework. The > question here is which issues can NOT be settled within the existing > governmental and non-governmental organisations. In case we can clear define > what the missing link is what would be the right answer: tzo improve > existing organisaitons by a reform process? To create a new body? What such > a new body would do better and why? What would be the concrete mandate, the > membership, the budget, the oversight? > > > > 3. the need to specify global public policies on specific issues like > social networks, search engines, cloud computing, CIR management, IOT, > intermediaries etc. with regard to privacy, freedom of expression, security, > crime prevention, IPR etc. Here we have to identify the specific nature of > the problem and to look for a concrete answer how to deal with this specific > problem, whether a best practice guideline, a general political > recommendation or a legally binding norm is necassary. And again: who should > do this? We have to be very carefully that we first identify the issue > before we start to develop policies and move to instruments. Here we need a > case by case approach. There will be different solutions for different > issues and at the end there will be a very diversified and distributed > system of policies and mechanisms to implement (and to oversee/review) those > policies. > > > > 4. the need to develop further a multistakeholder oversight mechanism. > There new AoC review mechanism is conceptually a good starter to rethink the > traditional approach to oversight. We need oversight to strengthen > transparency, legitimacy and accountability, but there is no need to have > ONE oversight body for all Internet related public policy issues. Each issue > probably needs a specifically designed oversight mechanism. And such a > mechanism has to be designed on a multistakeholder basis. Unfortunately the > first review under the AoC (ATRT) was done in a hurry and was not so > impressive. But the proposed design is an interesting step into a new > territory how oversight can be organized issue based, decentralized and on a > multistakeholder basis. And BTW, who oversees bodies like ITU, WIPO and the > UN? > > > > Part of this issue will be discussed in the IGF Imrpovment working group > but CS and the Caucus should trs to find its own mechanisms to move foreward > to make proposals to the various bodies. The letter to the UNGA (the > Shanghai project) was a good starter. More has to be done. > > > > Wolfgang > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani at isd-rc.org Fri Oct 14 01:55:56 2011 From: kabani at isd-rc.org (Asif Kabani) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:55:56 +0500 Subject: AW: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit? In-Reply-To: <4E968929.9030200@ciroap.org> References: <4F3BFA8DBDEE49F5A6D79B13F3FC1158@acer6e40e97492> <1AFC79A4-0A09-410E-ADB3-957404F661B0@ciroap.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B02F31A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <55ec4c25297e0eb510ee91249094c476.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4E9438C0.3020505@cafonso.ca> <4E959A17.4080103@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C601@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4E968929.9030200@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Jeremy, thank you for sharing the statement, regards On 13 October 2011 11:46, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > ** > On 13/10/11 13:16, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > > Dear All, > > Excellent analysis from Wolfgang and others! > > Hope we can assemble very good statement from the inputs so far? > > Dr. Jeremy looking up for a daft statement. > > > I have already re-sent our last statement on enhanced cooperation to Romulo > Neves of Brazil who promised to share it with his colleagues from South > Africa and India ahead of the meeting. But I felt that there was not strong > support for a new statement yet, such as the one that Sala had suggested we > write after holding a straw poll (or in her words "white monkey" poll, which > is a new expression for me!). Given the upcoming change in coordinators, > this is another reason why it may now be best to wait until after the IBSA > meeting before issuing a new statement. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -- Asif Kabani Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 06:36:52 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:36:52 +1200 Subject: [governance] Interesting Developments in Europe Message-ID: Dear All, 1) Commission has approved the acquisition of skype by Microsoft: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1164&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en 2)The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) have released a report on Next Generation Access: http://erg.ec.europa.eu/doc/berec/bor_11_43.pdf (I found the treatment of local loop unbundling interesting and the different jurisdictions within Europe) 3)BEREC has published for consultation draft guidelines on net neutrality and transparency, see: http://erg.eu.int/doc/berec/bor_11_44.pdf This is interesting considering their response to the European Commission's consultation on the open Internet and Net Neutrality in Europe in 2010, see: http://erg.eu.int/doc/berec/bor_10_42.pdf -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 14 07:04:51 2011 From: vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk (vincent solomon) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:04:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Re: Fwd: I am my own boss... Message-ID: <1318590291.41539.androidMobile@web29014.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

Hi
this will truly help you discover who you literally are
http://piekne-mazury.cba.pl/NicholasYoung25.html
see you

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 11:41:57 2011 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:41:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: Work Continues to Increase Developing Economies' Participation in the New gTLD Program Message-ID: (Apologies for cross-posting) From: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13oct11-en.htm Work Continues to Increase Developing Economies Participation in the New gTLD Program Comment Period Deadlines (*) Important Information Links Public Comment Box *Open Date:* 13 October 2011 To Submit Your Comments (Forum) *Close Date:* 16 December 2011 *Time (UTC):* 23:59 View Comments Submitted *Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose* A message from the JAS WG: Public comment is requested concerning the Joint Applicant Support *Final Report* [PDF, 503 KB] which deals with a very important issue: *How can ICANN assist applicants from developing economies increase their participation in the new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program? *Comments will be received until December 16 2011. The Final Report is the last step of the work done by the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG). The group is represented by ICANN community members from around the world that have been working together on this initiative since April 2010. The Report offers recommendations on how ICANN should develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants from developing economies requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs Registries under the New gTLD Program. The Report proposes initial criteria for qualification as well as several other types of support for ICANN to consider. It has been approved by ALAC and the GNSO, the chartering organizations. Translations of the Final Report [PDF, 503 KB]: - Español [PDF, 513 KB] - Français [PDF, 570 KB] *Section II: Background* Below are some basic aspects of this work. *This proposal is currently under consideration by ICANN community, Board and Staff. A Program is under development and further details will be made available on ICANN's website to the general public.* The JAS WG was formed following a Resolution from ICANN Board of Directors in Nairobi, on March 2010 that asked ICANN's stakeholder community *"...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs."* 1. What is this all about? What is a Final Report? The Final Report is a document produced by the JAS WG that offers recommendations on how ICANN should develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants from developing economies requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs Registries. The Final Report proposes initial criteria for qualification as well as several other types of support for ICANN to consider. It has been approved by the GNSO and ALAC, the chartering organizations. This initiative is related to the New gTLD Program, which in the near future will allow entities from around the world to apply for a new generic top-level domain (new gTLD). The applicants passing the evaluation process will sign a contract with ICANN and run a Registry. 2. Who is being considered to receive support? Once the new gTLD applicant interested in receiving support has demonstrated "service to the public interest," "financial capabilities and need," one or more of the following characteristics apply: - Support by and/or for distinct cultural, linguistic and ethnic communities; - Service in an under-served language, the presence of which on the Internet has been limited; - Operation in a developing economy in a manner that provides genuine local social benefit; - Advocated by non-profit, civil society and non-governmental organizations in a manner consistent with the organizations' social service mission(s); and - Operation by a local entrepreneur(s), providing demonstrable social benefit in those geographic areas where market constraints make normal business operations more difficult. The Final Report also recommends that it instead use the internationally agreed-upon UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs list: - Least Developed Countries: category 199; - Landlocked Developing Countries: category 432; - Small Island Developing States: category 722; - Indigenous Peoples, as described in Article 1 of Convention No. 169 of the International Labour Organization and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.All applicants will be expected give a self-declaration that they are eligible to receive support under these criteria. 3. Who does NOT qualify for support? According to the JAS WG, the application must NOT have any of the following characteristics: - An applicant for a gTLD string that is not a generic word intended to reference a specific commercial entity (commonly referred to within ICANN as a "dot-brand"); - A governmental or para-statal institution; - A gTLD string that is a geographic name or is based on one; - Affiliated with sponsors or partners that are bankrupt or under bankruptcy protection; - Affiliated with sponsors or partners that are the subject of litigation or criminal investigation; - Incapable of meeting any of the Applicant Guidebook's due diligence procedures. 4. Who benefits from this? Why is it important? We all benefit from this initiative. The Internet belongs to all as well as the responsibility to look into effective ways to reduce the Digital Divide, in this particular case, by delivering a sustainable and critical support for applicants from developing economies and looking for a solution not only at the application phase but also through to the initial years of these new Registry operators. It is important because the Internet is a virtual real estate that belongs to everyone. Entities from around the world should be able to increase their participation in the top-level expansion. The Working Group also stresses it is important not only to increase participation from developing economies, but also to increase the likelihood of success by these new participants that will be delivering Domain Name Services (DNS). The current New gTLD Program, as designed, has an evaluation (and several other fees) that are considered high for a significant number of potential participants from around the world. Besides the issue of high fees, the program is in English only and has an evaluation process with criteria and requirements that are quite complex to navigate. 5. What kind of assistance in being considered? The Final Report proposes a full array of financial and non-financial support to be offered to applicants that meet the established criteria. The support should be available in the first and all subsequent rounds of new gTLD applications. Currently ICANN has launched an online work space dedicated to connect potential applicants from developing regions who wish to apply for a New gTLD in their community with organizations who wish to offer either financial or non-financial assistance. See details on how this space works here:http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/candidate-support 6. Who is part of this Working Group? The JAS WG is comprised of highly respected and experienced volunteers from the Supporting Organization and the Advisory Committee. This all-volunteer group teleconferences twice each week, and works through a Wiki and mailing lists. These active contributors are located in Australia, Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, North America and the Caribbean. *Section III: Document and Resource Links* Relevant Resolutions and previous Public Comment Forum: - Information about the New gTLD Program - http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20 - http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.2 - http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct10-en.htm - http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201004 - First Milestone Report Public Forum - http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/second-milestone-report-10jun11-en.htm Archive regarding the WG activities: - E-mail: soac-newgtldapsup-wg at icann.org - Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Support+Working+Group+%28JAS-WG%29 *Section IV: Additional Information* The JAS WG will hold a session during the upcoming ICANN Dakar Meeting to both explain the Final Report and receive additional community feedback. This session will have remote participation for the people not able to attend in person. The JAS WG recently held a webinar about the Final Report. The webinar has been recorded and is available in English, French and Spanish. See recordings here . *Staff Contact:* Karla Valente *Email:* karla.valente at icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 14:03:08 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IMPORTANT: Work Continues to Increase Developing Economies' Participation in the New gTLD Program Message-ID: <1318615388.54134.yint-ygo-j2me@web161010.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear All, Thanks to Tracy for highlighting the importance to the program for Developing Economies. Would you like to share your own review comments? 1. How much applicants are expected to avail the support actually? e.g. 5, 10, 50 or 100s? As per the budget/funds are being reserved/arranged. 2. Expected success/ outcome of IDN gTLDs of Developing / under-Developed Economies 3. Expected cost per domain (cost transferred to the end user)? Thanks. Imran Ahmed Shah >On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:41 PKT Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote:>(Apologies for cross-posting)>>From: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13oct11-en.htm>> Work Continues to Increase Developing Economies Participation in the New>gTLD Program Comment Period Deadlines (*) Important Information Links Public>Comment Box>*Open Date:* 13 October 2011 To Submit Your Comments>(Forum)>*Close Date:* 16 December 2011 *Time (UTC):* 23:59 View Comments>Submitted>*Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose*>>A message from the JAS WG:>>Public comment is requested concerning the Joint Applicant Support *Final>Report* [PDF,>503 KB] which deals with a very important issue: *How can ICANN assist>applicants from developing economies increase their participation in the new>generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program? *Comments will be received>until December 16 2011.>>The Final Report is the last step of the work done by the Joint Applicant>Support Working Group (JAS WG). The group is represented by ICANN community>members from around the world that have been working together on this>initiative since April 2010. The Report offers recommendations on how ICANN>should develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants>from developing economies requiring assistance in applying for and operating>new gTLDs Registries under the New gTLD Program. The Report proposes initial>criteria for qualification as well as several other types of support for>ICANN to consider. It has been approved by ALAC and the GNSO, the chartering>organizations.>>Translations of the Final>Report>[PDF,>503 KB]:>> - Español >[PDF,> 513 KB]> - Français >[PDF,> 570 KB]>>*Section II: Background*>>Below are some basic aspects of this work.>>*This proposal is currently under consideration by ICANN community, Board>and Staff. A Program is under development and further details will be made>available on ICANN's website to the general public.*>>The JAS WG was formed following a>Resolution>from>ICANN Board of Directors in Nairobi, on March 2010 that asked ICANN's>stakeholder community *"...to develop a sustainable approach to providing>support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new>gTLDs."*>> 1. What is this all about? What is a Final Report?>> The Final Report is a document produced by the JAS WG that offers> recommendations on how ICANN should develop a sustainable approach to> providing support to applicants from developing economies requiring> assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs Registries. The Final> Report proposes initial criteria for qualification as well as several other> types of support for ICANN to consider. It has been approved by the GNSO and> ALAC, the chartering organizations.>> This initiative is related to the New gTLD Program, which in the near> future will allow entities from around the world to apply for a new generic> top-level domain (new gTLD). The applicants passing the evaluation process> will sign a contract with ICANN and run a Registry.> 2. Who is being considered to receive support?>> Once the new gTLD applicant interested in receiving support has> demonstrated "service to the public interest," "financial capabilities and> need," one or more of the following characteristics apply:> - Support by and/or for distinct cultural, linguistic and ethnic> communities;> - Service in an under-served language, the presence of which on the> Internet has been limited;> - Operation in a developing economy in a manner that provides genuine> local social benefit;> - Advocated by non-profit, civil society and non-governmental> organizations in a manner consistent with the organizations'>social service> mission(s); and> - Operation by a local entrepreneur(s), providing demonstrable social> benefit in those geographic areas where market constraints make normal> business operations more difficult.>> The Final Report also recommends that it instead use the internationally> agreed-upon UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs list:> - Least Developed Countries: category 199;> - Landlocked Developing Countries: category 432;> - Small Island Developing States: category 722;> - Indigenous Peoples, as described in Article 1 of Convention No. 169> of the International Labour Organization and the UN Declaration on the> Rights of Indigenous Peoples.All applicants will be expected give a> self-declaration that they are eligible to receive support under these> criteria.> 3. Who does NOT qualify for support?>> According to the JAS WG, the application must NOT have any of the> following characteristics:> - An applicant for a gTLD string that is not a generic word intended to> reference a specific commercial entity (commonly referred to>within ICANN as> a "dot-brand");> - A governmental or para-statal institution;> - A gTLD string that is a geographic name or is based on one;> - Affiliated with sponsors or partners that are bankrupt or under> bankruptcy protection;> - Affiliated with sponsors or partners that are the subject of> litigation or criminal investigation;> - Incapable of meeting any of the Applicant Guidebook's due diligence> procedures.> 4. Who benefits from this? Why is it important?>> We all benefit from this initiative. The Internet belongs to all as well> as the responsibility to look into effective ways to reduce the Digital> Divide, in this particular case, by delivering a sustainable and critical> support for applicants from developing economies and looking for a solution> not only at the application phase but also through to the initial years of> these new Registry operators.>> It is important because the Internet is a virtual real estate that> belongs to everyone. Entities from around the world should be able to> increase their participation in the top-level expansion. The Working Group> also stresses it is important not only to increase participation from> developing economies, but also to increase the likelihood of success by> these new participants that will be delivering Domain Name Services (DNS).>> The current New gTLD Program, as designed, has an evaluation (and several> other fees) that are considered high for a significant number of potential> participants from around the world. Besides the issue of high fees, the> program is in English only and has an evaluation process with criteria and> requirements that are quite complex to navigate.> 5. What kind of assistance in being considered?>> The Final Report proposes a full array of financial and non-financial> support to be offered to applicants that meet the established criteria.>> The support should be available in the first and all subsequent rounds of> new gTLD applications.>> Currently ICANN has launched an online work space dedicated to connect> potential applicants from developing regions who wish to apply for a New> gTLD in their community with organizations who wish to offer either> financial or non-financial assistance. See details on how this space works> here:http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/candidate-support> 6. Who is part of this Working Group?>> The JAS WG is comprised of highly respected and experienced volunteers> from the Supporting Organization and the Advisory Committee. This> all-volunteer group teleconferences twice each week, and works through a> Wiki and mailing lists. These active contributors are located in Australia,> Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, North America and the Caribbean.>>*Section III: Document and Resource Links*>>Relevant Resolutions and previous Public Comment Forum:>> - Information about the New gTLD>Program> - http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20> - http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.2> - http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct10-en.htm> - http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201004> - First Milestone Report Public>Forum> -> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/second-milestone-report-10jun11-en.htm>>Archive regarding the WG activities:>> - E-mail: soac-newgtldapsup-wg at icann.org> - Wiki:> https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Support+Working+Group+%28JAS-WG%29>>*Section IV: Additional Information*>>The JAS WG will hold a session during the upcoming ICANN Dakar>Meeting to>both explain the Final Report and receive additional community feedback.>This session will have remote participation for the people not able to>attend in person.>>The JAS WG recently held a webinar about the Final Report. The webinar has>been recorded and is available in English, French and Spanish. See>recordings here .> *Staff Contact:* Karla Valente *Email:*>karla.valente at icann.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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Oct 15 04:24:48 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:24:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] WG: Russian Federation increases financial contribution to ITU References: <3005.Sebgarsh.AS-106917.2011.10.14.68692.16.pressoffice@itu.int> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C60D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI ________________________________ Von: ITU Press Office [mailto:pressoffice at itu.int] Gesendet: Fr 14.10.2011 19:04 An: Mr Wolfgang Kleinwachter Betreff: Russian Federation increases financial contribution to ITU ORIGINAL: English Russian Federation increases financial contribution to ITU - Support to enhance the role of ITU in global ICT development Geneva, 14 October 2011 - The Russian Federation announced a significant increase in its financial support to ITU, raising its 'contributory units' from ten to fifteen, amounting to CHF 4,777,000, or about USD 5.32 million at current exchange rates. Each 'contributory unit', which ITU Member States provide on a voluntary basis, is CHF 318,000. This increase is in addition to the CHF 5 million contribution from the Russian Federation towards the refurbishment of ITU's main conference hall, now dedicated to Alexander Stepanovich Popov (1859-1906), the Russian physicist who first demonstrated the practical application of electromagnetic waves. For full text see: http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2011/40.aspx __________ Unsubscribe from mailing list: http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/unsubscribe.asp?id=3005&lang=en ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Oct 15 06:08:44 2011 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:08:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] WG: Russian Federation increases financial contribution to ITU In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C60D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3005.Sebgarsh.AS-106917.2011.10.14.68692.16.pressoffice@itu.int> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C60D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <398D820C-A75A-4DCA-8E42-AA8B0B22B59B@uzh.ch> One has to assume this is a strategic decision that will be leveraged later, that's how it works. I was sole CS person on the US delegation to the 1997 World Telecom Policy Forum where the big issues were the WTO's new basic telecom agreement and the pressures eroding the accounting and settlements system from which many PTTs were making billions via above-cost rates. The head of the Japanese delegation got up and pledged a pot of money to help developing country PTTs make a soft landing transition, to great applause. Soon thereafter he was elected Secretary General, and spent two terms campaigning for ITU control of the Internet. Putin recently met with SG Toure, and now there's this. I don't know if any of their more visible participants are eyeing leadership posts for the next election cycle, but the Russians do have proposals on the table seeking to expand ITU regulatory authority viz. the Internet and related issues, and they undoubtedly would like a nice voting bloc behind them. Which raises again the question of whether there's any way a new UN body, e.g. as envisioned by the IBSA proposal, could be insulated from the sort of vote buying & trading dynamics that pervade other UN processes, what that could mean for the Internet, etc…? Bill On Oct 15, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > FYI > > ________________________________ > > Von: ITU Press Office [mailto:pressoffice at itu.int] > Gesendet: Fr 14.10.2011 19:04 > An: Mr Wolfgang Kleinwachter > Betreff: Russian Federation increases financial contribution to ITU > > > > ORIGINAL: English > > Russian Federation increases financial contribution to ITU - > Support to enhance the role of ITU in global ICT development > > Geneva, 14 October 2011 - The Russian Federation announced a significant increase in its financial support to ITU, raising its 'contributory units' from ten to fifteen, amounting to CHF 4,777,000, or about USD 5.32 million at current exchange rates. Each 'contributory unit', which ITU Member States provide on a voluntary basis, is CHF 318,000. > > This increase is in addition to the CHF 5 million contribution from the Russian Federation towards the refurbishment of ITU's main conference hall, now dedicated to Alexander Stepanovich Popov (1859-1906), the Russian physicist who first demonstrated the practical application of electromagnetic waves. > > > For full text see: > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2011/40.aspx > > __________ > Unsubscribe from mailing list: > > http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/unsubscribe.asp?id=3005&lang=en > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 18 16:45:08 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:45:08 +1200 Subject: [governance] ICANN 42 in Dakar Message-ID: Dear All, If there are people on this list who will be in Dakar for the ICANN 42 or who reside in Senegal, it would be great to share a cup of tea with you. I will be in Dakar on the 21st October, 2011. Best Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Oct 18 22:55:43 2011 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:25:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration Message-ID: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> Here's the relevant bit from the Tshwane Declaration. # Internet Governance 52. The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to working together towards a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society and their agreement to continue to coordinate positions for the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) follow-up mechanisms, as well as in the other fora and organizations related to the Information Society and Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). 53. The Leaders expressed their satisfaction with the ongoing work in this arena; recognized the role of the Internet as a catalyst for economic and social progress; and emphasized its potential to enhance IBSA’s profile as a key global player. The leaders reaffirmed the IBSA framework agreement for Cooperation on the Information Society adopted on September 13, 2006 and recalled the commitments made in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda with regard to Enhanced Cooperation. 54. The Leaders highlighted the importance of building a wide political coalition at the international level for making the global internet governance regime as multilateral, democratic and transparent as provided by the WSIS. In this context, they reiterated the urgent need to operationalise the process of ‘Enhanced Cooperation’ mandated by the Tunis Agenda and recalled, with satisfaction, the fruitful coordination amongst IBSA countries in the deliberations on ‘Enhanced Cooperation’ in the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) and in the UN Secretary-General’s Open Consultations held in December 2010. The leaders took note of the recommendations of the IBSA Workshop on Global Internet Governance convened in Rio de Janeiro on 1-2 September 2011 and resolved to jointly undertake necessary follow-up action. 55. The Leaders emphasized Internet Governance as a key strategic area that requires close collaboration and concrete action. In this context, it recommended the establishment of an IBSA Internet Governance and Development Observatory that should be tasked to monitor developments on global Internet Governance and provide regular updates and analyses from the perspective of developing countries. -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Wed Oct 19 00:55:28 2011 From: karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int (karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 06:55:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN 42 in Dakar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1319000128.4e9e5840cf2e3@gold.itu.ch> Dear Salanieta, I'll also be there on 21st Regards, ATTOUMANI MOHAMED Karim, Comoros representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN Ingénieur Télécoms en Transmission, Réseaux et Commutation Chef du Département Études et Projets, Autorité Nationale de Régulation des TIC (ANRTIC) - Union des Comores, (+269) 334 37 06 (Mobile Moroni) - ID Skype: attoukarim Quoting "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" : > Dear All, > > If there are people on this list who will be in Dakar for the ICANN 42 or > who reside in Senegal, it would be great to share a cup of tea with you. I > will be in Dakar on the 21st October, 2011. > > Best Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Oct 19 06:45:24 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:45:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] GENDER PERIPHERIES OF THE 2011 INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM Message-ID: <4E9EAA44.7000308@apc.org> Hi all Here is APC's edition of GenderIT.org focused on the Nairobi IGF. We would be really keen to get feedback. We are actually really excited about this IGF. The women's rights activists who came really 'gets' why internet governance is important and why they should become more involved. Having a pre-IGF workshop on women's rights and internet governance made a huge difference. We have not finalised the results of the 'gender report card' we did on this year's IGF but share some broad reflections in this edition of GenderIT.org. I have to commend Bill Drake on this score.. every workshop or main session he moderates has majority female panels. The challenge however is not so much in gender balance among speakers... >From GenderIT.org on the results of the report card: "Although....there is a relatively small gender gap between male and female presenters, this did not translate into actual inclusion of gendered perspectives and analysis in the content of the discussion or presentations. This led us to assess that no direct link can be made between numbers and gender inclusion, which is an important learning for the organisers of IGF and IGF workshops..... If there is serious commitment to uphold the multistakeholder principles and to ensure diversity of concerns and knowledge, this means critical inclusion of gendered analysis and perspectives. There is a need to go beyond numbers and move from gender parity to inclusion. Some recommendations to this end includes specific consideration of the gendered dimension of thematic areas, and identifying speakers who can enrich the dialogue on internet governance by bringing in a women's rightsi and gendered analysis. " Best Anriette --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- *GENDER CENTRED: A GenderIT.org thematic bulletin* APC WNSP - GenderIT.org, 18 October 2011 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- I. THOUGHTS AROUND...Scoring participation II. NEW ARTICLES III. FEATURED RESOURCES IV. FEMINIST TALKS --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Year after year the Internet Governance Forum renews expectations and opportunities of gender advocates to find innovative solutions to enhance women's rights online and offline. After 6 years of activism, this space still seems to be resistant to the inclusion of gender perspectives and activists arefaced with more questions than answers. Where are women's rights on the internet governance agenda? How to get the women's movements more involved within this new arena of public policy? How to replace the protectionist approach that traditionally surrounds women's rights defence with one that is rights-based? Along with Jennifer Radloff who introduces this edition we believe it is a responsibility of all stakeholders to make women's rights relevant and visible in the IGF debates, and to do so gender analysis and women's participation needs to be much more institusionalised in the planning of the next IGF. Looking forward to your comments, insights and submissions, Katerina and Flavia from GenderIT.org! --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- I. THOUGHTS AROUND... *Scoring participation – how does change happen for women in the IGF* by Jennifer Radloff, a South African feminist activist and the APC senior coordinator During the years of my school and university studies, report cards caused me high levels of anxiety but accompanied by some underlying optimism. Report cards assumed all-knowing experts were making decisions around my abilities and progress. It would invariably be a measure of success or failure and would expose my weak points and (hopefully) highlight my positive traits. But they always had a judgmental and antagonistic picture in my mind. My position has now shifted since seeing how report cards can gather useful evidence and potentially affect change. The IGF Gender Report Card initiative proposed by the APC was a first and small but revealing step in measuring representation, visibility, content and contributions from a gender perspective. The Gender Report Card looks at how many women are participating in each IGF session, how many speakers of each IGF session are men or women and to what extent each session does or does not incorporate a gendered analysis... Read the full editorial at: http://www.genderit.org/node/3487 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- II. NEW ARTICLES *Stripping the IGF bare: where are women´s rights?* GenderIT.org's editors, Flavia Fascendini and Katerina Fialova, speak with the APC WNSP members who took part at the Sixth Internet Governance Forum that took place in Nairobi, Kenya from 27-30 September 2011. In the interview, Chat García Ramilo, Dafne Sabanes Plou, Jac sm Kee, Jan Moolman, and Jennifer Radloff from the APC Women´s Programme offer their insights regarding gender balance and the presence of women's rights in the 2011 IGF agenda. http://www.genderit.org/node/3486 *Women activists and internet governance: let's open the debate* Dafne Plou reports on the workshop of about 20 women's rights advocates from different countries and backgrounds who met late September 2011, in Nairobi, Kenya, just before the 6th Internet Governance Forum to share their experiences in policy advocacy and to discuss internet governance and its linkage to women’s rights agendas. The workshop was organised by the APC Women's Networking Support Programme (APC WNSP). http://www.genderit.org/node/3483 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- III. FEATURED RESOURCES *6th UN IGF: Statement by the Gender Dynamic Coalition* The Gender Dynamic Coalition statement issued during the 6th UN Internet Governance Forum in September 2011, in Kenya, criticises the continued gender imbalance in both participation (as speakers and participants of workshops and sessions) and substance of the discussions at IGF. It also supports the call to make human rights the IGF 2012 theme and requests that equal attention be paid to women's rights, emphasising the need of a rights-based approach instead of protectionist solutions. http://www.genderit.org/node/3480 *Human rights online: new issues and threats* This policy issue paper from the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) outlines the state of human rights online and the major challenges facing activists and human rights defenders. As levels of censorship and surveillance are increasing worldwide, even in democratic countries, which threatens the work -- and the lives -- of human rights defenders, APC calls for the theme of the 2012 IGF to focus exclusively on human rights. http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/IRHRPolicyBrief_EN.pdf *APC Priorities for the Sixth Internet Governance Forum* The 13-page brief by APC reminds UN conference-goers of critical issues facing the freedom of the internet today including affordability, openness and network neutrality in the mobile internet and online violence against women. http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APCIGFBrief2011.pdf --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- IV. FEATURED FEMINIST TALKS *Why women's movements should take a deep breath…* Aisha Lee Shaheed was one of the participants of the two-day workshop “Women’s Rights and Internet Governance” convened by the APC WNSP late September 2011, in Nairobi, Kenya, just prior to the 6th Annual Internet Governance Forum. In her blog post, Aisha recounts how the workshop shifted her perspective on internet governance and why she as a women human rights defender should care about it. http://www.genderit.org/node/3484 *IGF Gender Report Cards* APC WNSP is sharing some preliminary results of the gender report cards initiate. This was a pilot initiative put forward by the Association for Progressive Communications to monitor and assess the level of gender parity and inclusion at this year's Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Although the numbers of sessions monitored were relatively small, and that a deeper analysis is needed, the statistics generated and first impressions can give us an idea of the role that women and gender issues played in this IGF's debates. http://www.genderit.org/node/3489 To read more Feminist Talk's posts and debates visit: http://www.genderit.org/feminist-talk --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- *2011 APC Women's Networking Support Programme (APC WNSP). Except where otherwise noted, content in this newsletter is published by GenderIT.org, a project of the APC WNSP, and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You are free to share, republish or remix so long as you attribute GenderIT.org and the author clearly as the original source. *Gender Centred Archive* http://www.genderit.org/bulletin *Sign up for Gender Centred* http://www.genderit.org/subscribe-bulletin Write to: mailto:genderit at apcwomen.org Twitter: @GenderITorg #genderit --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 19 07:04:57 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:04:57 +1200 Subject: [governance] ICANN 42 in Dakar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [rofl] @ Olivier's comments. Yes it will be good to have a cup of tea together, Karim, Baudouin & Olivier just to catch up :) We can even grab some dinner on the 21st. Yes travelling from the Pacific is such a strain but it should be worth it. Best, Sala On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Baudouin Schombe < baudouin.schombe at gmail.com> wrote: > I will reach Dakar on 21st > > Baudouin > > 2011/10/18 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > >> Dear All, >> >> If there are people on this list who will be in Dakar for the ICANN 42 or >> who reside in Senegal, it would be great to share a cup of tea with you. I >> will be in Dakar on the 21st October, 2011. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > > -- > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ > ACADEMIE DES TIC > FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre > At-Large Member > NCSG Member > > email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com > baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net > tél:+243998983491 > skype:b.schombe > wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net > blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 03:07:32 2011 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:07:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN 42 in Dakar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I will reach Dakar on 21st Baudouin 2011/10/18 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Dear All, > > If there are people on this list who will be in Dakar for the ICANN 42 or > who reside in Senegal, it would be great to share a cup of tea with you. I > will be in Dakar on the 21st October, 2011. > > Best Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Oct 19 12:24:08 2011 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:24:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> Message-ID: <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> On Oct 19, 2011, at 4:55 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > The leaders took note of the recommendations of the IBSA Workshop on Global Internet Governance convened in Rio de Janeiro on 1-2 September 2011 and resolved to jointly undertake necessary follow-up action. The leaders took no note of the global community's reactions to those recommendations during the Internet Governance Forum convened in Nairobi on 27-30 September 2011 and resolved to pretend it didn't happen. > 55. The Leaders emphasized Internet Governance as a key strategic area that requires close collaboration and concrete action. In this context, it recommended the establishment of an IBSA Internet Governance and Development Observatory that should be tasked to monitor developments on global Internet Governance and provide regular updates and analyses from the perspective of developing countries. The leaders agreed that their initiative is really about IBSA rather than about the Internet, so global multistakeholder participation in the Observatory is not needed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 12:28:14 2011 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:58:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> Message-ID: Hello Pranesh, On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Here's the relevant bit from the Tshwane Declaration. > > # Internet Governance > 52. The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to working together towards a > people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society and > their agreement to continue to coordinate positions for the World Summit on > Information Society (WSIS) follow-up mechanisms, as well as in the other > fora and organizations related to the Information Society and Information > and Communication Technologies (ICTs). > # This summit is attended by the highest level of the Governments, from India, the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has attended this summit. The declaration that has emerged sounds positive and appears to be an improvement over the previous draft that has been the cause for much contention within the Internet Governance Community. # However the wording of the declaration is "work together towards a people centered, inclusive Information Society" - there is no explicit reference to the 'multi-stakeholder model'. Work towards a people centered society, as Governments (alone) or together [with other stakeholders] on a [mutli-stakeholder model]? After all the debate in the mailing lists and at the IGF that the Governments would certainly have taken note of, the wording is still elusive on commitment to the mutli-stakeholder model. Though the wording includes 'inclusive', the reference is not explicit on the mutli-stakeholder model. > 53. The Leaders expressed their satisfaction with the ongoing work in this > arena; recognized the role of the Internet as a catalyst for economic and > social progress; # Recognized the role of Internet, but no recognition of the progress made in the area of Internet Governance process ? > and emphasized its potential to enhance IBSA’s profile as a key global > player. # Yes, IBSA could emerge as a key player. As a person from India, I am inspired by India's leadership in the Non-Aligned movement in the past, and feel that India could work to bring together the unrepresented perspectives on Internet Governance. This India could do from the IBSA base, beginning with its present three member nations, in a non-confrontationistic manner characteristic of India. The leaders reaffirmed the IBSA framework agreement for Cooperation on the > Information Society adopted on September 13, 2006 and recalled the > commitments made in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis > Agenda with regard to Enhanced Cooperation. > # It is positive the declaration has drawn attention to "Enhanced Cooperation". > 54. The Leaders highlighted the importance of building a wide political > coalition at the international level for making the global internet > governance regime as multilateral, democratic and transparent as provided by > the WSIS. > # Here it goes again. "Global Internet Governance regime" as "multillateral" as provided by WSIS ? Is there a transcription error here? I hope that this is an unintended transcription error. # If IBSA emerges as a "key global player" it would be great to see it emerge as a "key global payer" with an unambiguous commitment to multi-stakeholder participation. > In this context, they reiterated the urgent need to operationalise the > process of ‘Enhanced Cooperation’ mandated by the Tunis Agenda and recalled, with > satisfaction, the fruitful coordination amongst IBSA countries in the > deliberations on ‘Enhanced Cooperation’ in the UN Commission on Science and > Technology for Development (CSTD) and in the UN Secretary-General’s Open > Consultations held in December 2010. The leaders took note of the > recommendations of the IBSA Workshop on Global Internet Governance convened > in Rio de Janeiro on 1-2 September 2011 and resolved to jointly undertake > necessary follow-up action. > 55. The Leaders emphasized Internet Governance as a key strategic area that > requires close collaboration and concrete action. # "close collaboration" [ among the different stakeholders ] ? > In this context, it recommended the establishment of an IBSA Internet > Governance and Development Observatory that should be tasked to monitor > developments on global Internet Governance and provide regular updates and > analyses from the perspective of developing countries. > # I hope that the Governments take care to avoid bad advice if any. Sivasubramanian M. India. > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Programme Manager > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org > > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Oct 19 13:25:38 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:25:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> Hi Bill I think your response is a bit hasty. There are serious gaps.. e.g. the lack of emphasis on multi-stakeholder participation pointed out by Sivasubramanian, but overall I think the section on IG shows very clearly that the IBSA government representatives took reactions at the IGF to their proposal very seriously. This is a very different text to what had been proposed, and clearly indicates that there will be further discussion on the September meeting's recommendations, which is what civil society organisations from the three countries requested. Multi-stakeholder participation in the observatory is not mentioned, but it is also not excluded. My assumption is that this was an oversight, rather than a deliberate attempt to make it 'intergovernmental'. However, I think that the absence of multi-stakeholder participation as a principle is very disappointing. It should have been mentioned upfront in the section on global governance reform. There are other references to participation from stakeholders.. but that is not enough. Human rights text is fairly good, as is the IP text. Need to still read the whole document carefully. Anriette On 19/10/11 18:24, William Drake wrote: > > > On Oct 19, 2011, at 4:55 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > >> The leaders took note of the recommendations of the IBSA Workshop on >> Global Internet Governance convened in Rio de Janeiro on 1-2 September >> 2011 and resolved to jointly undertake necessary follow-up action. > > The leaders took no note of the global community's reactions to those > recommendations during the Internet Governance Forum convened in Nairobi > on 27-30 September 2011 and resolved to pretend it didn't happen. > >> 55. The Leaders emphasized Internet Governance as a key strategic area >> that requires close collaboration and concrete action. In this >> context, it recommended the establishment of an IBSA Internet >> Governance and Development Observatory that should be tasked to >> monitor developments on global Internet Governance and provide regular >> updates and analyses from the perspective of developing countries. > > The leaders agreed that their initiative is really about IBSA rather > than about the Internet, so global multistakeholder participation in the > Observatory is not needed. -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Oct 19 14:05:03 2011 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:05:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> Message-ID: <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> Hi Anriette We just had this conversation bilaterally, but sure let's open it up... On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi Bill > > I think your response is a bit hasty. There are serious gaps.. e.g. the > lack of emphasis on multi-stakeholder participation pointed out by > Sivasubramanian, but overall I think the section on IG shows very > clearly that the IBSA government representatives took reactions at the > IGF to their proposal very seriously. As with many diplomatic texts, one can read it a number of ways. I guess you read the absence of specific reference to a new UN organization to "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible" etc. as reflecting a shift. I read the larger thrust of the text and its references to prior pronouncements etc and don't come away confident there's an agreed shift, at least not yet. But either way, if you're right they took reactions at the IGF to their proposal very seriously, why not say that? Why not help strengthen the IGF's position by underscoring its value and the importance of global multistakeholder dialogue on this and related matters? That's what I referred to, the no comment on the IGF dialogue, … > > This is a very different text to what had been proposed, Do you mean the by the Rio recs, or something else? > and clearly > indicates that there will be further discussion on the September > meeting's recommendations, which is what civil society organisations > from the three countries requested. > > Multi-stakeholder participation in the observatory is not mentioned, but > it is also not excluded. My assumption is that this was an oversight, > rather than a deliberate attempt to make it 'intergovernmental'. We are always being told, or telling ourselves, that the lack of mention of multistakeholder participation in these things is an oversight. Given all the heated discussions on the matter, I find that increasingly difficult to swallow. The lack of specific reference to a UN body is revealing, but the lack of specific reference to multistakeholderism is just a case of whoops, sorry, we forgot…? The thrust still feels pretty intergovernmental, as in "The Leaders...emphasized its potential to enhance IBSA’s profile as a key global player." > However, I think that the absence of multi-stakeholder participation as > a principle is very disappointing. It should have been mentioned upfront > in the section on global governance reform. There are other references > to participation from stakeholders.. but that is not enough. > > Human rights text is fairly good, as is the IP text. Yes > > Need to still read the whole document carefully. Yes http://www.pravasitoday.com/read-tshwane-declaration-at-5th-ibsa-summit Cheers, Bill > > On 19/10/11 18:24, William Drake wrote: >> >> >> On Oct 19, 2011, at 4:55 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >> >>> The leaders took note of the recommendations of the IBSA Workshop on >>> Global Internet Governance convened in Rio de Janeiro on 1-2 September >>> 2011 and resolved to jointly undertake necessary follow-up action. >> >> The leaders took no note of the global community's reactions to those >> recommendations during the Internet Governance Forum convened in Nairobi >> on 27-30 September 2011 and resolved to pretend it didn't happen. >> >>> 55. The Leaders emphasized Internet Governance as a key strategic area >>> that requires close collaboration and concrete action. In this >>> context, it recommended the establishment of an IBSA Internet >>> Governance and Development Observatory that should be tasked to >>> monitor developments on global Internet Governance and provide regular >>> updates and analyses from the perspective of developing countries. >> >> The leaders agreed that their initiative is really about IBSA rather >> than about the Internet, so global multistakeholder participation in the >> Observatory is not needed. > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 19 23:36:13 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:36:13 +1200 Subject: [governance] US requests China website censoring details Message-ID: Dear All, I read with interest the following: US requests China website censoring details http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10760429 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 00:14:34 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:14:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: US requests China website censoring details In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Also interesting in the South China news, see Tens of millions of dollars in legal aid is being pumped into a mounting number of judicial review cases - many of them challenges to government policies.......more at the URL below http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2c913216495213d5df646910cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=7cc6f93e2bc13310VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&ss=Hong+Kong&s=News On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I read with interest the following: > > US requests China website censoring details > > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10760429 > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Thu Oct 20 00:22:25 2011 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:22:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Considering a Common Pool Resource Approach to City-TLDs Message-ID: <4E9FA201.2000902@communisphere.com> It's been suggested that city-TLDs, such as .nyc, .london, .mumbai, and .paris, are "open greenfields for new local governance structures." And that they would most effectively serve the public interest if developed as digital commons. How do we advance the idea that city-TLDs - and especially .nyc - are best developed as public interest resources? David Bollier, an important voice for the commons - http://bollier.org/ - joins us at our weekly Tea and TLDs conference to imagine a governance structure that best assures a city-TLD's equitable development and long term vitality. Join us this Thursday from 10-11 AM at our Google Hangout - http://bit.ly/NYCTLD -- for the conversation. If you can't make it, look to our blog -- http://bit.ly/OurBlog -- for a recording. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt P.S. Also, see the countdown clock on filing for the .nyc TLD. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Oct 20 04:05:25 2011 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:05:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] US requests China website censoring details In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16C52D0E-A101-4707-990E-33814F05389A@uzh.ch> Hi Sala This is indeed an interesting development. During the WSIS and thereafter, WTO staff and other trade people were rather equivocal when some of us argued that since the multilateral trade regimes apply to Internet commerce they constitute a form of global Internet governance. They didn't want trade policy issues drawn into the IG space, inter alia because like the IPR people involved in WIPO & WTO they preferred to keep these solely within their institutional space. But over the past couple years a growing number of trade analysts have begun to view FOE restrictions as trade restrictions, and Google & industry groups like the Computer & Communications Industry Association have picked up and pressed the argument. This might present a little bit of a conundrum for folks who are both proponents of FOE and opponents of the WTO system… China's restrictions on foreign-based websites & related operations may well be a violation of the GATS if its schedule of commitments doesn't carve them out under the relevant modes of supply like via networks or commercial presence. China could try to argue that the restrictions are legal under the General Exceptions escape clause that allows measures necessary "to protect public morals or to maintain public order," but that works only if it can be shown that the services pose a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the fundamental interests of society and the measures are nondiscriminatory and not a disguised restriction on trade in services. If this goes to a dispute settlement panel, an important legal precedent, potentially backed by the option of trade sanctions, could ensue. Whether anyone would want to take the risk of acting on that option, and whether it'd even prove necessary, are other questions. A couple years ago the Appellate Body ruled against China in a dispute with the US over the importation of material publications and audiovisual products, finding that China's actions violated its accession agreement, the GATT, and the GATS, and specifically said that China had failed to show its actions were necessary to protect public morals. I don't recall that this gave rise to sanctions though—I think they undertook some relaxation of restrictions in their distribution system. Who knows if that could be a precedent… Bill On Oct 20, 2011, at 5:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > I read with interest the following: > > US requests China website censoring details > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10760429 > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 05:30:32 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:30:32 +0500 Subject: [governance] Have you used Voting link for 2011 IGC coordinator election Message-ID: <004201cc8f0a$ebf81210$c3e83630$@yahoo.com> Dear All Members of the IGC CS, With reference to the Election for one of the two positions of Coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). This is just a soft reminder that if you have not utilized your vote, today is the last date vote for the position of ICS CS Coordinator by using the ballot send by Dr Jeremy. You have option to vote one of the following: 1. Asif Kabani 2. Sonigitu Ekpe 3. Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro 4. Imran Ahmed Shah Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmad Shah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hongxueipr at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 05:42:40 2011 From: hongxueipr at gmail.com (Hong Xue) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:42:40 +0800 Subject: [governance] US requests China website censoring details In-Reply-To: <16C52D0E-A101-4707-990E-33814F05389A@uzh.ch> References: <16C52D0E-A101-4707-990E-33814F05389A@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi, Bill, very interesting discussion. It's been quite a lot of discussions on whether filtering/denial of access to certain online locations constitute TBT in WTO. I recently raised this issue at UNESCAP trade facilitation forum and discussed with a group of people from WTO and UNECE. The basic consensus is that technical barriers to trade is merely for trade for (physical) goods, not service. As you know, WTO is still pretty messy on how to categorize e-commerce in the dichotomy. Basically it depends largely on the actual "subject matters" of the transaction. However and most unfortunately, no agreement can be reached on "digital things" (well okay under copyright, such as downloading via itune). I personally tend to deem them services, which cannot be subject to trade restriction categories. The openness for service trade, such as telecom, is very much subject to each country's specific commitments made through negotiation. Hong On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:05 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Sala > > This is indeed an interesting development. During the WSIS and thereafter, > WTO staff and other trade people were rather equivocal when some of us > argued that since the multilateral trade regimes apply to Internet commerce > they constitute a form of global Internet governance. They didn't want > trade policy issues drawn into the IG space, inter alia because like the IPR > people involved in WIPO & WTO they preferred to keep these solely within > their institutional space. But over the past couple years a growing number > of trade analysts have begun to view FOE restrictions as trade restrictions, > and Google & industry groups like the Computer & Communications Industry > Association have picked up and pressed the argument. This might present a > little bit of a conundrum for folks who are both proponents of FOE and > opponents of the WTO system… > > China's restrictions on foreign-based websites & related operations may > well be a violation of the GATS if its schedule of commitments doesn't carve > them out under the relevant modes of supply like via networks or commercial > presence. China could try to argue that the restrictions are legal under > the General Exceptions escape clause that allows measures necessary "to > protect public morals or to maintain public order," but that works only if > it can be shown that the services pose a genuine and sufficiently > serious threat to the fundamental interests of society and the measures are > nondiscriminatory and not a disguised restriction on trade in services. If > this goes to a dispute settlement panel, an important legal precedent, > potentially backed by the option of trade sanctions, could ensue. > > Whether anyone would want to take the risk of acting on that option, and > whether it'd even prove necessary, are other questions. A couple years ago > the Appellate Body ruled against China in a dispute with the US over the > importation of material publications and audiovisual products, finding that > China's actions violated its accession agreement, the GATT, and the GATS, > and specifically said that China had failed to show its actions were > necessary to protect public morals. I don't recall that this gave rise to > sanctions though—I think they undertook some relaxation of restrictions in > their distribution system. Who knows if that could be a precedent… > > Bill > > > > On Oct 20, 2011, at 5:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > I read with interest the following: > > US requests China website censoring details > > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10760429 > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 06:31:40 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:31:40 +1200 Subject: [governance] US requests China website censoring details In-Reply-To: <16C52D0E-A101-4707-990E-33814F05389A@uzh.ch> References: <16C52D0E-A101-4707-990E-33814F05389A@uzh.ch> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:05 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Sala > > This is indeed an interesting development. During the WSIS and thereafter, > WTO staff and other trade people were rather equivocal when some of us > argued that since the multilateral trade regimes apply to Internet commerce > they constitute a form of global Internet governance. They didn't want > trade policy issues drawn into the IG space, inter alia because like the IPR > people involved in WIPO & WTO they preferred to keep these solely within > their institutional space. > Yes I thought that it was an interesting evolution. What is equally interesting is that at the end of the day trade positions and interests exist to benefit countries and governments are finding that they have to reconsider certain positions when global corporates/multinationals can easily choose to be established in jurisdictions that not only give optimum return but where they can freely carry out their respective business objectives. What to me is exciting about the evolution is how this global borderless thing called the internet and with companies like Google that has caches and presence all over the world, they would demand for the free flow of their services without hinderance, ie. removal of barriers. To me this is where it gets interesting and I think in months to come La Rue's Report as Special Rapporteur on Access will be analysed in a different light. It will most certainly be interesting to see economic rights and political rights interplay and how the balance is achieved. > But over the past couple years a growing number of trade analysts have > begun to view FOE restrictions as trade restrictions, and Google & industry > groups like the Computer & Communications Industry Association have picked > up and pressed the argument. > One of the goals of the Taskforce on Internet Telecom Infrastructure and Services (ITIS) which is part of the International Chamber of Commerce is to "Promote liberalization of trade in telecommunications and information technology markets with the World Trade Organization (WTO), with other international organizations and with national authorities. " See: http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/id9260/index.html > This might present a little bit of a conundrum for folks who are both > proponents of FOE and opponents of the WTO system… > Interesting indeed :) > > China's restrictions on foreign-based websites & related operations may > well be a violation of the GATS if its schedule of commitments doesn't carve > them out under the relevant modes of supply like via networks or commercial > presence. China could try to argue that the restrictions are legal under > the General Exceptions escape clause that allows measures necessary "to > protect public morals or to maintain public order," but that works only if > it can be shown that the services pose a genuine and sufficiently > serious threat to the fundamental interests of society and the measures are > nondiscriminatory and not a disguised restriction on trade in services. If > this goes to a dispute settlement panel, an important legal precedent, > potentially backed by the option of trade sanctions, could ensue. > > Whether anyone would want to take the risk of acting on that option, and > whether it'd even prove necessary, are other questions. > > A couple years ago the Appellate Body ruled against China in a dispute > with the US over the importation of material publications and audiovisual > products, finding that China's actions violated its accession agreement, the > GATT, and the GATS, and specifically said that China had failed to show its > actions were necessary to protect public morals. > Interesting. > I don't recall that this gave rise to sanctions though—I think they > undertook some relaxation of restrictions in their distribution system. Who > knows if that could be a precedent… > And time will certainly tell :) > > Bill > > > > On Oct 20, 2011, at 5:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > I read with interest the following: > > US requests China website censoring details > > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10760429 > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Oct 20 07:01:19 2011 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:01:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] US requests China website censoring details In-Reply-To: References: <16C52D0E-A101-4707-990E-33814F05389A@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <24C3365D-4786-4515-B360-339A42FD47E4@uzh.ch> Hi Hong On Oct 20, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Hong Xue wrote: > > Hi, Bill, very interesting discussion. It's been quite a lot of discussions on whether filtering/denial of access to certain online locations constitute TBT in WTO. I recently raised this issue at UNESCAP trade facilitation forum and discussed with a group of people from WTO and UNECE. The basic consensus is that technical barriers to trade is merely for trade for (physical) goods, not service. Yes, the trade facilitation discussion on TBT focuses more on the material world---customs and related exciting stuff. But I don't think the argument being made is that censoring sites is a TBT or a matter of trade facilitation. > As you know, WTO is still pretty messy on how to categorize e-commerce in the dichotomy. Basically it depends largely on the actual "subject matters" of the transaction. > However and most unfortunately, no agreement can be reached on "digital things" (well okay under copyright, such as downloading via itune). Messy indeed. A main polarity has been between the EU and US. The EU has argued that "digital things" must be classified as services and under the GATS for various reasons, ontological as well as consistency with its single market agenda, its exclusion of audio-visual services from its liberalization commitments in the Uruguay Round, privacy protection, and ultimately because GATS disciplines are weaker and more flexible than GATT's. The US has inclined toward the arguments from the software & other content industries that it doesn't matter if one ships across a border in shrink wrap or in bits if the things function like goods. A colleague and I did a piece over a decade ago arguing that negotiators should define clear criteria differentiating goods from services rather than having dispute settlement panels legislate this, and that products delivered electronically should be considered goods if they are locally stored and transferable between buyers (that is if their function and contractual value become independent from the intervention of the supplier at the time of transaction). But probably we're drifting off topic for this list... > I personally tend to deem them services, which cannot be subject to trade restriction categories. The openness for service trade, such as telecom, is very much subject to each country's specific commitments made through negotiation. Not sure i understand the first sentence, but as stated I agree with the second. Cheers Bill > > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:05 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Sala > > This is indeed an interesting development. During the WSIS and thereafter, WTO staff and other trade people were rather equivocal when some of us argued that since the multilateral trade regimes apply to Internet commerce they constitute a form of global Internet governance. They didn't want trade policy issues drawn into the IG space, inter alia because like the IPR people involved in WIPO & WTO they preferred to keep these solely within their institutional space. But over the past couple years a growing number of trade analysts have begun to view FOE restrictions as trade restrictions, and Google & industry groups like the Computer & Communications Industry Association have picked up and pressed the argument. This might present a little bit of a conundrum for folks who are both proponents of FOE and opponents of the WTO system… > > China's restrictions on foreign-based websites & related operations may well be a violation of the GATS if its schedule of commitments doesn't carve them out under the relevant modes of supply like via networks or commercial presence. China could try to argue that the restrictions are legal under the General Exceptions escape clause that allows measures necessary "to protect public morals or to maintain public order," but that works only if it can be shown that the services pose a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the fundamental interests of society and the measures are nondiscriminatory and not a disguised restriction on trade in services. If this goes to a dispute settlement panel, an important legal precedent, potentially backed by the option of trade sanctions, could ensue. > > Whether anyone would want to take the risk of acting on that option, and whether it'd even prove necessary, are other questions. A couple years ago the Appellate Body ruled against China in a dispute with the US over the importation of material publications and audiovisual products, finding that China's actions violated its accession agreement, the GATT, and the GATS, and specifically said that China had failed to show its actions were necessary to protect public morals. I don't recall that this gave rise to sanctions though—I think they undertook some relaxation of restrictions in their distribution system. Who knows if that could be a precedent… > > Bill > > > > On Oct 20, 2011, at 5:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> I read with interest the following: >> >> US requests China website censoring details >> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10760429 >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > Dr. Hong Xue > Professor of Law > Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > Beijing Normal University > http://www.iipl.org.cn/ > 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > Beijing 100875 China -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Oct 20 07:12:47 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:12:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] US requests China website censoring details In-Reply-To: <24C3365D-4786-4515-B360-339A42FD47E4@uzh.ch> References: <16C52D0E-A101-4707-990E-33814F05389A@uzh.ch> <24C3365D-4786-4515-B360-339A42FD47E4@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4EA0022F.30600@digsys.bg> On 20.10.11 14:01, William Drake wrote: > The US has inclined toward the arguments from the software & other > content industries that it doesn't matter if one ships across a border > in shrink wrap or in bits if the things function like goods. Interesting times to come, when teleportation becomes reality. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 07:18:19 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:18:19 +1200 Subject: [governance] US requests China website censoring details In-Reply-To: <4EA0022F.30600@digsys.bg> References: <16C52D0E-A101-4707-990E-33814F05389A@uzh.ch> <24C3365D-4786-4515-B360-339A42FD47E4@uzh.ch> <4EA0022F.30600@digsys.bg> Message-ID: Well if you can fax in 3D.... On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > On 20.10.11 14:01, William Drake wrote: > >> The US has inclined toward the arguments from the software & other content >> industries that it doesn't matter if one ships across a border in shrink >> wrap or in bits if the things function like goods. >> > > Interesting times to come, when teleportation becomes reality. > > Daniel > > ______________________________**______________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 20 07:18:31 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:18:31 +0800 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections Message-ID: Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing coordinator and returning officer. 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who are encouraged to re-apply next year. 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the above" option. In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do you think? The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new role. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2212 bytes Desc: not available URL: From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 07:24:04 2011 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:24:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Sala and thank you Jeremy for all your hard work over the last two years. If I can help with the Charter review please let me know best wishes Deirdre On 20 October 2011 07:18, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing > coordinator and returning officer. > > 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 > (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) > for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of > the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who > are encouraged to re-apply next year. > > 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already > voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not > given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > > In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their > eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail > of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a > couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" > option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership > for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in > the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was > unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my > experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the > above" option. > > In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my > view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on > the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to > coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such > an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on > all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of > candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid > misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year > that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do > you think? > > The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably > within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new > role. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 07:26:52 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:26:52 +1200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Firstly this is humbling and I thank you sincerely for your confidence and hope to serve you. I would also like to thank my comrades Songitu, Asif and Imran, and hope that you run again next year. I would also like to thank Jeremy for the nomination and Bill for seconding it and all those that supported it. I do no intend to fill in nor try to fill in Jeremy's shoes - they are far too big :) Jeremy as we all know has done tremendous work and so I thank you Jeremy. I look forward to being briefed by Jeremy and Izumi. I am actually in Seoul waiting for my flight to Dubai which leaves in 3 hours. Again thank you for allowing me the privilege to be your serve you. Best Regards, Sala On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing > coordinator and returning officer. > > 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 > (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) > for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of > the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who > are encouraged to re-apply next year. > > 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already > voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not > given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > > In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their > eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail > of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a > couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" > option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership > for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in > the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was > unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my > experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the > above" option. > > In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my > view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on > the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to > coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such > an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on > all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of > candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid > misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year > that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do > you think? > > The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably > within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new > role. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Thu Oct 20 07:29:01 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:29:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sala, Congratulations in emerging as the new IGC Coordinator. Once gain congratulations!!!!!!! Sonigitu Ekpe (aka) Sea On 20 Oct 2011 12:19, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing coordinator and returning officer. 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who are encouraged to re-apply next year. 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the above" option. In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do you think? The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new role. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. *www.consumersinternational.org* *Twitter @ConsumersInt * Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 20 07:32:50 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:32:50 +1200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sea, Thank you my friend, I will be relying on you and also drawing from your wisdom. Best, Sala On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe < sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng> wrote: > Dear Sala, > > Congratulations in emerging as the new IGC Coordinator. > > Once gain congratulations!!!!!!! > > Sonigitu Ekpe > (aka) Sea > > On 20 Oct 2011 12:19, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > > Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing > coordinator and returning officer. > > 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 > (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) > for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of > the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who > are encouraged to re-apply next year. > > 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already > voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not > given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > > In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their > eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail > of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a > couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" > option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership > for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in > the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was > unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my > experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the > above" option. > > In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my > view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on > the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to > coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such > an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on > all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of > candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid > misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year > that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do > you think? > > The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably > within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new > role. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From KovenRonald at aol.com Thu Oct 20 07:34:51 2011 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections Message-ID: <3a53e.6c6bb92c.3bd1615a@aol.com> Dear All -- I didn't vote because i didn't get a very clear idea who the candidates were. But I still want to be active in the IGC. I therefore think there should be a way to vote, exoressing interest in the IGC, without stating a preference for a candidate. Rather than "none of the above," I suggest there be provision for "abstain," which casts aspersions on nobody, while showing attachment to the caucus. With a couple of notable exceptions, voting isn't a requirement of citizenship. And even in countries where voting is required explicitly (Australia, Belgium) or implicitly (Italy), one can, after all cast a blank or spoiled ballot. Best regards, Rony Koven -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 07:38:34 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:38:34 +0500 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ed01cc8f1c$cff68e40$6fe3aac0$@yahoo.com> Thanks to Dr Jeremy, Congratulation to Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. Very interesting that one lawyer is replacing another lawyer. Hopefully, Sala will also be very helpful for the coordinating and representing IGC CS. I also agree with the Dr Jeremy, for the provisioning in voting for "non from the proposed options" and also vote to add this option in the Charter as well. Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmad Shah From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 04:19 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing coordinator and returning officer. 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who are encouraged to re-apply next year. 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the above" option. In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do you think? The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new role. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 20 07:47:09 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:47:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <3a53e.6c6bb92c.3bd1615a@aol.com> References: <3a53e.6c6bb92c.3bd1615a@aol.com> Message-ID: <5U83H+29oAoOFA1w@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <3a53e.6c6bb92c.3bd1615a at aol.com>, at 07:34:51 on Thu, 20 Oct 2011, KovenRonald at aol.com writes >Rather than "none of the above," I suggest there be provision for >"abstain," which casts aspersions on nobody, while showing attachment >to the caucus. > >With a couple of notable exceptions, voting isn't a requirement of >citizenship. And even in countries where voting is required explicitly >(Australia, Belgium) or implicitly (Italy), one can, after all cast a >blank or spoiled ballot. A simple technical workaround would be to allow people to vote for multiple (rather than just one) candidates, and thus spoil their paper in the same way they would in a conventional election. I don't think that's something which should require a charter change. -- 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 ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 20 08:25:15 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:25:15 -0200 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> OK, my tokens on this: - It is obvious there was a shift and I am sure Brazil took into account our (BR ngos') insistent dialogue on the issues with them. - The Tshwane Declaration shows the IBSA efforts are far broader than Internet-related issues, and at least BR ngos are interested in the whole set of themes they are dealing with, not just whether Icann's butt will be kicked or not. - The "thrust" (whatever the meaning in this context) of the declaration of an intergovernmental meeting, Bill, is intergovernmental, what else would you expect? I would insist our compas north of the Equator, and especially west of Greenwich :) be a bit more neutral when analyzing joint intergovernmental efforts from the South, and always remember to take a look at their own govs' tails first. frt rgds --c.a. On 10/19/2011 04:05 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Anriette > > We just had this conversation bilaterally, but sure let's open it up... > > On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Hi Bill >> >> I think your response is a bit hasty. There are serious gaps.. e.g. the >> lack of emphasis on multi-stakeholder participation pointed out by >> Sivasubramanian, but overall I think the section on IG shows very >> clearly that the IBSA government representatives took reactions at the >> IGF to their proposal very seriously. > > As with many diplomatic texts, one can read it a number of ways. I guess you read the absence of specific reference to a new UN organization to "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible" etc. as reflecting a shift. I read the larger thrust of the text and its references to prior pronouncements etc and don't come away confident there's an agreed shift, at least not yet. But either way, if you're right they took reactions at the IGF to their proposal very seriously, why not say that? Why not help strengthen the IGF's position by underscoring its value and the importance of global multistakeholder dialogue on this and related matters? That's what I referred to, the no comment on the IGF dialogue, … >> >> This is a very different text to what had been proposed, > > Do you mean the by the Rio recs, or something else? > >> and clearly >> indicates that there will be further discussion on the September >> meeting's recommendations, which is what civil society organisations >> from the three countries requested. >> >> Multi-stakeholder participation in the observatory is not mentioned, but >> it is also not excluded. My assumption is that this was an oversight, >> rather than a deliberate attempt to make it 'intergovernmental'. > > We are always being told, or telling ourselves, that the lack of mention of multistakeholder participation in these things is an oversight. Given all the heated discussions on the matter, I find that increasingly difficult to swallow. The lack of specific reference to a UN body is revealing, but the lack of specific reference to multistakeholderism is just a case of whoops, sorry, we forgot…? > > The thrust still feels pretty intergovernmental, as in "The Leaders...emphasized its potential to enhance IBSA’s profile as a key global player." > >> However, I think that the absence of multi-stakeholder participation as >> a principle is very disappointing. It should have been mentioned upfront >> in the section on global governance reform. There are other references >> to participation from stakeholders.. but that is not enough. >> >> Human rights text is fairly good, as is the IP text. > > Yes >> >> Need to still read the whole document carefully. > > Yes > > http://www.pravasitoday.com/read-tshwane-declaration-at-5th-ibsa-summit > > Cheers, > > Bill >> >> On 19/10/11 18:24, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 4:55 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >>> >>>> The leaders took note of the recommendations of the IBSA Workshop on >>>> Global Internet Governance convened in Rio de Janeiro on 1-2 September >>>> 2011 and resolved to jointly undertake necessary follow-up action. >>> >>> The leaders took no note of the global community's reactions to those >>> recommendations during the Internet Governance Forum convened in Nairobi >>> on 27-30 September 2011 and resolved to pretend it didn't happen. >>> >>>> 55. The Leaders emphasized Internet Governance as a key strategic area >>>> that requires close collaboration and concrete action. In this >>>> context, it recommended the establishment of an IBSA Internet >>>> Governance and Development Observatory that should be tasked to >>>> monitor developments on global Internet Governance and provide regular >>>> updates and analyses from the perspective of developing countries. >>> >>> The leaders agreed that their initiative is really about IBSA rather >>> than about the Internet, so global multistakeholder participation in the >>> Observatory is not needed. >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ofdral at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 09:07:38 2011 From: ofdral at gmail.com (Dan Ofori) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:07:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <5U83H+29oAoOFA1w@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <3a53e.6c6bb92c.3bd1615a@aol.com> <5U83H+29oAoOFA1w@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Congrats Sala On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <3a53e.6c6bb92c.3bd1615a at aol.**com<3a53e.6c6bb92c.3bd1615a at aol.com>>, > at 07:34:51 on Thu, 20 Oct 2011, KovenRonald at aol.com writes > > Rather than "none of the above," I suggest there be provision for >> "abstain," which casts aspersions on nobody, while showing attachment to the >> caucus. >> >> With a couple of notable exceptions, voting isn't a requirement of >> citizenship. And even in countries where voting is required explicitly >> (Australia, Belgium) or implicitly (Italy), one can, after all cast a blank >> or spoiled ballot. >> > > A simple technical workaround would be to allow people to vote for multiple > (rather than just one) candidates, and thus spoil their paper in the same > way they would in a conventional election. I don't think that's something > which should require a charter change. > -- > 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 > > -- Daniel Ofori Accra,Ghana (T:)+233-244-730989 (E:) ofdral at gmail.com skype: ofdral -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 09:36:19 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 01:36:19 +1200 Subject: [governance] Efficient Spectrum Management + Efficient Networks = Access ? Message-ID: Dear All, I was looking for something on the International Chamber of Commerce website and found an Article interesting on Mobile Broadband Spectrum Shortage requires immediate action, see: http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/index.html?id=46201 It's relevance to internet governance is that Spectrum is a factor in terms of access for consumers etc. Also an interesting article was published in Trinidad today, see an article called "Not Quite An App for That Yet" by Bevil Wooding, see: http://www.guardian.co.tt/business-guardian/2011/10/20/not-quite-yet-app on Mobile Networks holding back innovation... Cheers, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 09:42:02 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 01:42:02 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Efficient Spectrum Management + Efficient Networks = Access ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Pardon me for the typo it's almost midnight and am tired of waiting for my flight ...should read "found an interesting article on" in the second line. On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I was looking for something on the International Chamber of Commerce > website and found an Article interesting on Mobile Broadband Spectrum > Shortage requires immediate action, see: > http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/index.html?id=46201 It's relevance to > internet governance is that Spectrum is a factor in terms of access for > consumers etc. > > > Also an interesting article was published in Trinidad today, see an article > called "Not Quite An App for That Yet" by Bevil Wooding, see: > http://www.guardian.co.tt/business-guardian/2011/10/20/not-quite-yet-app > > on Mobile Networks holding back innovation... > > Cheers, > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Oct 20 09:51:03 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:51:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Efficient Spectrum Management + Efficient Networks = Access ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 01:36:19 on Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >Article interesting on Mobile Broadband Spectrum Shortage requires >immediate action, >see: http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/index.html?id=46201 It's >relevance to internet governance is that Spectrum is a factor in terms >of access for consumers etc I was at a meeting in UK Parliament last week where the mobile networks admitted (for the UK at least) that available spectrum and base-station rollout were limiting factors in the ability to provide multi-gigabyte-per-month mobile Internet access to subscribers. And that 4G wasn't going to cure it, merely paper over the cracks for a few years. The solution seemed to be handing off traffic to wifi points (with a subscription included with your mobile) whenever possible. Only one of the four networks has a product which does that, yet. The governance question is perhaps: does freedom of expression *require* that everyone (and I do mean everyone, on average) downloads a gigabyte of YouTube to their mobile every month, or is a few tens of megabytes of email and website browsing sufficient to qualify for that? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 20 09:53:35 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:53:35 -0200 Subject: [governance] Efficient Spectrum Management + Efficient Networks = Access ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA027DF.6020205@cafonso.ca> As usual when business asks for "immediate action" on something, let us be careful on this. Spectrum bids are won by big telcos who in many cases win these bids for a preemptive strategy -- hoarding big chunks of spectrum to block other competitors, even more so where regulators are weak or biased towards big business. This needs to be analyzed on a case by case basis with a review of actual deployment of services and real demand, as well as the focus of universal service (which in many cases is not imposed in the incumbent contracts by the regulators). --c.a. On 10/20/2011 11:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > I was looking for something on the International Chamber of Commerce website > and found an Article interesting on Mobile Broadband Spectrum Shortage > requires immediate action, see: > http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/index.html?id=46201 It's relevance to > internet governance is that Spectrum is a factor in terms of access for > consumers etc. > > > Also an interesting article was published in Trinidad today, see an article > called "Not Quite An App for That Yet" by Bevil Wooding, see: > http://www.guardian.co.tt/business-guardian/2011/10/20/not-quite-yet-app > > on Mobile Networks holding back innovation... > > Cheers, ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 20 09:55:35 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 01:55:35 +1200 Subject: [governance] Thailand Message-ID: Hope our friends in Thailand are ok: http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2c913216495213d5df646910cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=51e3aaf581f13310VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&ss=Asia+%26+World&s=News -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 09:58:03 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 01:58:03 +1200 Subject: [governance] Efficient Spectrum Management + Efficient Networks = Access ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes I also watched on Telecom TV something about Wifi being the solution as not only indoor but outdoor as well. It was at a Broadband Conference in Paris and one of the Providers, I may have sent the link or tweeted it - can't remember. On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message WQvs6FrRNVdA at mail.gmail.com >, at 01:36:19 on > Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@**gmail.com> > writes > > Article interesting on Mobile Broadband Spectrum Shortage requires >> immediate action, see: http://www.iccwbo.org/** >> policy/ebitt/index.html?id=**46201 It's >> relevance to internet governance is that Spectrum is a factor in terms of >> access for consumers etc >> > > I was at a meeting in UK Parliament last week where the mobile networks > admitted (for the UK at least) that available spectrum and base-station > rollout were limiting factors in the ability to provide > multi-gigabyte-per-month mobile Internet access to subscribers. > > And that 4G wasn't going to cure it, merely paper over the cracks for a few > years. The solution seemed to be handing off traffic to wifi points (with a > subscription included with your mobile) whenever possible. > > Only one of the four networks has a product which does that, yet. > > The governance question is perhaps: does freedom of expression *require* > that everyone (and I do mean everyone, on average) downloads a gigabyte of > YouTube to their mobile every month, or is a few tens of megabytes of email > and website browsing sufficient to qualify for that? > -- > Roland Perry > ______________________________**______________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 10:03:54 2011 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:03:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sala, FELICITATIONS CONGRATS SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2011/10/20 Jeremy Malcolm > Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing > coordinator and returning officer. > > 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 > (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) > for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of > the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who > are encouraged to re-apply next year. > > 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already > voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not > given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > > In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their > eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail > of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a > couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" > option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership > for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in > the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was > unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my > experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the > above" option. > > In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my > view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on > the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to > coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such > an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on > all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of > candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid > misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year > that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do > you think? > > The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably > within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new > role. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 20 10:04:33 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 02:04:33 +1200 Subject: [governance] Efficient Spectrum Management + Efficient Networks = Access ? In-Reply-To: <4EA027DF.6020205@cafonso.ca> References: <4EA027DF.6020205@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: And in the US this was on TV today: AT&T offers up spectrum, as states join DoJ lawsuit http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=48059&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > As usual when business asks for "immediate action" on something, let us > be careful on this. > > Spectrum bids are won by big telcos who in many cases win these bids for > a preemptive strategy -- hoarding big chunks of spectrum to block other > competitors, even more so where regulators are weak or biased towards > big business. This needs to be analyzed on a case by case basis with a > review of actual deployment of services and real demand, as well as the > focus of universal service (which in many cases is not imposed in the > incumbent contracts by the regulators). > > --c.a. > > On 10/20/2011 11:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > I was looking for something on the International Chamber of Commerce > website > > and found an Article interesting on Mobile Broadband Spectrum Shortage > > requires immediate action, see: > > http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/index.html?id=46201 It's relevance to > > internet governance is that Spectrum is a factor in terms of access for > > consumers etc. > > > > > > Also an interesting article was published in Trinidad today, see an > article > > called "Not Quite An App for That Yet" by Bevil Wooding, see: > > http://www.guardian.co.tt/business-guardian/2011/10/20/not-quite-yet-app > > > > on Mobile Networks holding back innovation... > > > > Cheers, > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From charlespmok at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 10:07:30 2011 From: charlespmok at gmail.com (Charles Mok (gmail)) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:07:30 +0800 Subject: [governance] Thailand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thailand in crisis as floods to hit BangkokReuters in Bangkok Updated on *Oct 20, 2011*Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said on Thursday Thailand was in crisis and the government was struggling to cope as the worst floods in half a century threatened to engulf the capital, Bangkok. Yingluck, under fire for her management of the flooding that has killed at least 320 people since July and devastated industrialised provinces in the centre of the country, called for national unity in the face of the crisis. “I have to admit the government can't keep a close eye on every spot. Now is a time of national crisis. Everybody should work together,” she said at a crisis centre set up at Bangkok's Don Muang airport. “Blaming each other won't help. Today we need unity to solve the problem,” she added. One inner city area was under threat on Thursday after floodwater breached a waterworks canal, officials said. Shelters for as many as 45,000 people were being prepared as a precaution, as residents of several northern districts packed up their belongings and left or waded waist-deep through normally bustling shopping streets. The worst flooding in half a century now covers a third of Thailand's provinces, some 4 million acres (1.6 million hectares) in the north, northeast and centre of the country. Huge industrial estates to the north of Bangkok have been swamped and the central bank put the damage to industry at more than 100 billion baht (US$3.3 billion) on Thursday. It has been raising interest rates for more than a year to fight inflation but it left them unchanged at a meeting on Wednesday and said on Thursday it was ready to call a special meeting to cut them if necessary. Japan's Sony said on Thursday it would delay the launch of several new cameras due in November after floods forced it to halt production at some Thai plants. The output of Japanese car makers has fallen by about 6,000 units a day because of the flooding. Rice traders and industry analysts said as much as 3.5 million tonnes of paddy, equivalent to 2 million tonnes of milled rice, may have been damaged and loading of 100,000 tonnes may have been delayed because of the flooding. Thailand is the world's biggest rice exporter. Bank of Thailand Governor Prasarn Trairatvorakul said economic growth this year could be more than one percentage point less than the 4.1 per cent the central bank has forecast. Finance Minister Thirachai Phuvanatnaranubala said on Tuesday it may be just a bit more than 2 per cent. The damage to the economy will be far higher if flooding hits Bangkok, which accounts for 41 per cent of GDP. Pracha Promnok, justice minister and head of the government crisis centre, said city officials had been pumping water out overnight in the Samsen and Makkasan areas, which are just north of the royal palace and other prime tourist sites. “If we can't control the situation or things go wrong with the water pumping machine or we can't pump water in time, then there's a chance that our Bangkok will be swamped,” Pracha told Channel 3 television, adding that the water level in the morning was still manageable. Water from the north is flowing towards Bangkok and the authorities have been trying desperately to divert it around the inner city using a defensive system of dikes and canals. The immediate danger seemed to have passed at the weekend, when high estuary tides and heavy rain added to the problem, but residents are braced for trouble again. In one northern district, floodwater flowed into the canals as villagers tried desperately to repair an embankment with improvised sandbags. Some people waded through waist-high water, others rowed through shopping streets on makeshift rafts. “I'm really scared, I couldn't sleep last night. I heard the water would come. I didn't know what to do,” said Sakor Byuanpanat, 54, in the Sai Mai district, whose home was knee-deep in water. A survey of 415 residents in Bangkok and nearby provinces by pollsters at Assumption University this week showed 87 per cent thought the government's information was unreliable. Concern about contaminated tap water prompted Bangkok residents to rush to buy bottled water on Thursday. One central supermarket run by Big C Super centre had sold out. Some 162 shelters have been prepared in case of evacuation and people in seven districts in the northeast of Bangkok were told to prepare for flooding. About 200 families were evacuated late on Wednesday and people were told to move cars and valuables to higher ground. Pracha said the flow of water down from Nava Nakorn, a big industrial estate north of Bangkok that is completely flooded, and elsewhere in Pathum Thani province was strong but the dikes were holding. Prasarn said economic growth could be more than one percentage point less than the 4.1 per cent the central bank has forecast and Finance Minister Thirachai Phuvanatnaranubala told reporters on Tuesday growth may be only a bit more than 2 per cent. On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Hope our friends in Thailand are ok: > http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2c913216495213d5df646910cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=51e3aaf581f13310VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&ss=Asia+%26+World&s=News > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Oct 20 10:16:20 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:16:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Efficient Spectrum Management + Efficient Networks = Access ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 01:58:03 on Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >Yes I also watched on Telecom TV something about Wifi being the >solution as not only indoor but outdoor as well. The idea is to bundle a subscription to widely deployed wifi hotspots "outdoors". The next stage is cleverer - persuade households with a landline (cable or ADSL) Internet connection to share their wifi with suitably authenticated third parties who just happen to be within 100 metres. Years ago there were many proposals for "meshes" which would have had a similar characteristic, but they seem to have fallen by the wayside. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Oct 20 10:42:25 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:42:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Sala and I am very happy to welcome her as my partner for the coming year. Thank you Songitu, Asif and Imran for making the multiple choice for this election and I would congratulate each of you as the strong potential partner with me. Please remain committed with IGC and hope you to run again next year. I also like to express my gratitude wholeheartedly to Jeremy for your dedication, steady works including the upgrading our website, managing the election process, mailing list, etc. Without you, I could not fulfill my duty. Thank you all for casting your votes. With the second phase of the IGF now facing the "improvements" debate, I think it is crucial for the civil society to make real relevance to the IGF debate, upgrade the whole IGF, especially for development, and in that regard I welcome Sala once again from the small island state in South Pacific. izumi 2011/10/20 Jeremy Malcolm : > Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing coordinator > and returning officer. > 99 valid votes were cast.  Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 > (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) > for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro.  I declare Sala as the next coordinator of > the IGC.  Congratulations!  Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who > are encouraged to re-apply next year. > 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already > voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not > given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their > eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail > of that opportunity.  This probably reflects the preference expressed by a > couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" > option.  The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership > for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in > the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was > unambiguously constitutional.  I was probably also influenced in this by my > experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the > above" option. > In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my > view we should include this in the charter explicitly.  I will put this on > the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to > coordinate now that I have ended my term.  My personal opinion is that such > an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on > all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of > candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with.  (To avoid > misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year > that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.)  But what do > you think? > The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably > within the next 48 hours.  Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new > role. > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > --                         >> 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 jcurran at istaff.org Thu Oct 20 10:51:06 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:51:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Efficient Spectrum Management + Efficient Networks = Access ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12A7DC23-C828-49B0-B335-44D8F3E9A6C5@istaff.org> On Oct 20, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 01:58:03 on Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >> Yes I also watched on Telecom TV something about Wifi being the solution as not only indoor but outdoor as well. > > The idea is to bundle a subscription to widely deployed wifi hotspots "outdoors". The next stage is cleverer - persuade households with a landline (cable or ADSL) Internet connection to share their wifi with suitably authenticated third parties who just happen to be within 100 metres. > > Years ago there were many proposals for "meshes" which would have had a similar characteristic, but they seem to have fallen by the wayside. Just FYI - To the extent that you want to enable similar "mesh" network solutions which rely on household Internet connectivity, it is important to lay some groundwork re the terms of the Internet service agreements for consumers first. While not enforced (to my knowledge), you'll find that the typical home broadband term of service precludes anything other personal/residential use via your local LAN, and some go as far to preclude the use of any equipment which would provide sharing of network service to others. While this doesn't really prevent the informal sharing that occurs nearly everywhere, it makes it challenging to build an actual service offer on top of a mesh of home Internet connections. FYI, /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 20 11:09:31 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:09:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Efficient Spectrum Management + Efficient Networks = Access ? In-Reply-To: <12A7DC23-C828-49B0-B335-44D8F3E9A6C5@istaff.org> References: <12A7DC23-C828-49B0-B335-44D8F3E9A6C5@istaff.org> Message-ID: <9+5WdXSrmDoOFAHt@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <12A7DC23-C828-49B0-B335-44D8F3E9A6C5 at istaff.org>, at 10:51:06 on Thu, 20 Oct 2011, John Curran writes >Just FYI - To the extent that you want to enable similar >"mesh" network solutions which rely on household Internet >connectivity, it is important to lay some groundwork re >the terms of the Internet service agreements for consumers >first. While not enforced (to my knowledge), you'll find >that the typical home broadband term of service precludes >anything other personal/residential use via your local LAN, >and some go as far to preclude the use of any equipment >which would provide sharing of network service to others. > >While this doesn't really prevent the informal sharing that >occurs nearly everywhere, it makes it challenging to build >an actual service offer on top of a mesh of home Internet >connections. I agree with all that, except that in the UK the home wifi sharing idea comes from the very telco supplying the residential connectivity (BT of course). http://www.btfon.com/ (The current issue is perhaps whether O2 mobile customers get access to the Fon network, or only the overtly public BT Openzone one. Mindful that O2 was once the mobile arm of BT, but sold off some time ago; nevertheless apparently still enjoying a certain degree of special relationship). -- 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 joy at apc.org Thu Oct 20 11:16:37 2011 From: joy at apc.org (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:16:37 +1300 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00f401cc8f3b$465d3de0$d317b9a0$@apc.org> Congratulations Sala - great to see Pacific women's leadership! Joy From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Friday, 21 October 2011 12:27 a.m. To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections Dear All, Firstly this is humbling and I thank you sincerely for your confidence and hope to serve you. I would also like to thank my comrades Songitu, Asif and Imran, and hope that you run again next year. I would also like to thank Jeremy for the nomination and Bill for seconding it and all those that supported it. I do no intend to fill in nor try to fill in Jeremy's shoes - they are far too big :) Jeremy as we all know has done tremendous work and so I thank you Jeremy. I look forward to being briefed by Jeremy and Izumi. I am actually in Seoul waiting for my flight to Dubai which leaves in 3 hours. Again thank you for allowing me the privilege to be your serve you. Best Regards, Sala On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing coordinator and returning officer. 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who are encouraged to re-apply next year. 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the above" option. In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do you think? The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new role. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 20 11:32:32 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:32:32 -0200 Subject: [governance] Efficient Spectrum Management + Efficient Networks = Access ? In-Reply-To: References: <4EA027DF.6020205@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4EA03F10.8060605@cafonso.ca> How about that? Thanks, Sala, for the useful reference. --c.a. On 10/20/2011 12:04 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > And in the US this was on TV today: > AT&T offers up spectrum, as states join DoJ lawsuit > > http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=48059&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> As usual when business asks for "immediate action" on something, let us >> be careful on this. >> >> Spectrum bids are won by big telcos who in many cases win these bids for >> a preemptive strategy -- hoarding big chunks of spectrum to block other >> competitors, even more so where regulators are weak or biased towards >> big business. This needs to be analyzed on a case by case basis with a >> review of actual deployment of services and real demand, as well as the >> focus of universal service (which in many cases is not imposed in the >> incumbent contracts by the regulators). >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/20/2011 11:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I was looking for something on the International Chamber of Commerce >> website >>> and found an Article interesting on Mobile Broadband Spectrum Shortage >>> requires immediate action, see: >>> http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/index.html?id=46201 It's relevance to >>> internet governance is that Spectrum is a factor in terms of access for >>> consumers etc. >>> >>> >>> Also an interesting article was published in Trinidad today, see an >> article >>> called "Not Quite An App for That Yet" by Bevil Wooding, see: >>> http://www.guardian.co.tt/business-guardian/2011/10/20/not-quite-yet-app >>> >>> on Mobile Networks holding back innovation... >>> >>> Cheers, >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 20 16:18:56 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:18:56 -0200 Subject: [governance] Background docs for CSTD WG upcoming meeting Message-ID: Dear all, Peter Major, the new chair of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, has provided a good set of documents to facilitate the the work and discussions of meeting participants. It would be great if more people could take a look and give their inputs about the dynamics he proposed and about the substantive aspects of the discussion. The main documents are: *Structure and working method of CSTD WG on Improvements to IGF * * * *Chairman’s draft summary of responses/recommendations to the Questionnaire * Any insights are much welcome. Best wishes, Marília -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 21:28:35 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:28:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] Huawei banned from providing public safety network gear... Message-ID: <29A5C9CCFE0A40D6938D08F9CBD3D217@acer6e40e97492> Huawei ""will not be taking part in the building of America's interoperable wireless emergency network for first responders due to U.S. government national-security concerns," Commerce Department spokesman Kevin Griffis told The Daily Beast. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/11/u-s-blocks-china-telecoms-b id-to-build-wireless-network-over-spying-concerns.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Oct 21 03:24:12 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:24:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC request for CSTD WG Message-ID: Dear list, IGC members to CSTD WG on IGF improvement have discussed and agreed to send the following request to the Chair asking for opening up of the WG meeting to observers to increase transparency and openness. It is not our "official statement", so I plan to send this shortly as co-moderator, but just to let you all know in advance. izumi ------- Dear Peter, The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC)  would like to ask you as the new Chair of the CSTD Working Group on improving IGF to open up the meeting to non-contributing observers as it will enhance transparency and openness of our work. There are a number of potential observers from the civil society as well as from other stakeholder groups, including governments, business, and  science and technical community, who may have good access to meetings in Geneva and would be interested in sitting inside the meeting room. We trust your wisdom and thank you very much for your kind consideration in advance, Jeremy Malcolm and Izumi Aizu, Co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (Jeremy will be replaced by our new Co-coordinator, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro shortly) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Fri Oct 21 03:49:27 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:49:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN 42 in Dakar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I will likely to arrive on 22th. Daniel On Oct 19, 2011, at 14:04 , Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > [rofl] @ Olivier's comments. Yes it will be good to have a cup of tea together, Karim, Baudouin & Olivier just to catch up :) We can even grab some dinner on the 21st. > > Yes travelling from the Pacific is such a strain but it should be worth it. > > Best, > Sala > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Baudouin Schombe wrote: > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it Fri Oct 21 04:03:37 2011 From: f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it (Fiorello Cortiana) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:03:37 +0200 Subject: R: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <3a53e.6c6bb92c.3bd1615a@aol.com> References: <3a53e.6c6bb92c.3bd1615a@aol.com> Message-ID: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E70A8@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> me too Fiorello Cortiana ________________________________ Da: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Per conto di KovenRonald at aol.com Inviato: giovedì 20 ottobre 2011 13.35 A: jeremy at ciroap.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Oggetto: Re: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections Dear All -- I didn't vote because i didn't get a very clear idea who the candidates were. But I still want to be active in the IGC. I therefore think there should be a way to vote, exoressing interest in the IGC, without stating a preference for a candidate. Rather than "none of the above," I suggest there be provision for "abstain," which casts aspersions on nobody, while showing attachment to the caucus. With a couple of notable exceptions, voting isn't a requirement of citizenship. And even in countries where voting is required explicitly (Australia, Belgium) or implicitly (Italy), one can, after all cast a blank or spoiled ballot. Best regards, Rony Koven -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it Fri Oct 21 04:17:25 2011 From: f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it (Fiorello Cortiana) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:17:25 +0200 Subject: R: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E70A8@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> References: <3a53e.6c6bb92c.3bd1615a@aol.com> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E70A8@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> Message-ID: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E70AA@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> Me too Fiorello Cortiana ________________________________ Da: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Per conto di KovenRonald at aol.com Inviato: giovedì 20 ottobre 2011 13.35 A: jeremy at ciroap.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Oggetto: Re: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections Dear All -- I didn't vote because i didn't get a very clear idea who the candidates were. But I still want to be active in the IGC. I therefore think there should be a way to vote, exoressing interest in the IGC, without stating a preference for a candidate. Rather than "none of the above," I suggest there be provision for "abstain," which casts aspersions on nobody, while showing attachment to the caucus. With a couple of notable exceptions, voting isn't a requirement of citizenship. And even in countries where voting is required explicitly (Australia, Belgium) or implicitly (Italy), one can, after all cast a blank or spoiled ballot. Best regards, Rony Koven -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Oct 21 04:29:40 2011 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:29:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> Hi Carlos On Oct 20, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > OK, my tokens on this: > > - It is obvious there was a shift and I am sure Brazil took into account > our (BR ngos') insistent dialogue on the issues with them. I'm glad to hear this. Since you talk with the government a lot you have a better vantage point from which to read what's behind the words. Others have to go on what the words say, and they are not crystal clear on the main point. If the notion of a new UN body that would integrate and centralize and oversee and thereby solve all problems has been abandoned, it'd be nice to hear that said in plain language that doesn't require readers to engage in hermeneutics, semiotics, deconstructionism, or related. Then all the folks who've been concerned about this can de-clench and we can start to have a probing and useful dialogue about better ways forward. BTW, do you know if we can assume then that there will not be a proposal going to the UNGA? > > - The Tshwane Declaration shows the IBSA efforts are far broader than > Internet-related issues, and at least BR ngos are interested in the > whole set of themes they are dealing with, not just whether Icann's butt > will be kicked or not. And non-BR ngos often share those interests, so let's have a broader discussion. > > - The "thrust" (whatever the meaning in this context) of the declaration > of an intergovernmental meeting, Bill, is intergovernmental, what else > would you expect? As you know, there have been quite a lot of intergovernmental meetings of late that have issued declarations endorsing MS approaches to IG. If the GAC, COE, OECD, et al can say it loud and clear, why can't IBSA? Yes we know the Brazilian govt is friendly to MS, but we don't know if IBSA now in fact sees open global MS processes as the way to proceed on the issues with which it is concerned. If yes, fabulous, they should say it and we will all tip our hats accordingly. > > I would insist our compas north of the Equator, and especially west of > Greenwich :) be a bit more neutral when analyzing joint > intergovernmental efforts from the South, Why should anyone be neutral? Your compas are opposed to bad ideas irrespective of where they come from, what's wrong with that? Are bad ideas less problematic if they're from the South? > and always remember to take a > look at their own govs' tails first. It's not obvious how this is relevant, but bad ideas from Northern governments, including those that may have issued their passports, have been routinely criticized by said compas since we launched this list in 2003. In fact, these get probably 85% of the air time! Cheers, Bill > > > On 10/19/2011 04:05 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi Anriette >> >> We just had this conversation bilaterally, but sure let's open it up... >> >> On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Hi Bill >>> >>> I think your response is a bit hasty. There are serious gaps.. e.g. the >>> lack of emphasis on multi-stakeholder participation pointed out by >>> Sivasubramanian, but overall I think the section on IG shows very >>> clearly that the IBSA government representatives took reactions at the >>> IGF to their proposal very seriously. >> >> As with many diplomatic texts, one can read it a number of ways. I guess you read the absence of specific reference to a new UN organization to "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible" etc. as reflecting a shift. I read the larger thrust of the text and its references to prior pronouncements etc and don't come away confident there's an agreed shift, at least not yet. But either way, if you're right they took reactions at the IGF to their proposal very seriously, why not say that? Why not help strengthen the IGF's position by underscoring its value and the importance of global multistakeholder dialogue on this and related matters? That's what I referred to, the no comment on the IGF dialogue, … >>> >>> This is a very different text to what had been proposed, >> >> Do you mean the by the Rio recs, or something else? >> >>> and clearly >>> indicates that there will be further discussion on the September >>> meeting's recommendations, which is what civil society organisations >>> from the three countries requested. >>> >>> Multi-stakeholder participation in the observatory is not mentioned, but >>> it is also not excluded. My assumption is that this was an oversight, >>> rather than a deliberate attempt to make it 'intergovernmental'. >> >> We are always being told, or telling ourselves, that the lack of mention of multistakeholder participation in these things is an oversight. Given all the heated discussions on the matter, I find that increasingly difficult to swallow. The lack of specific reference to a UN body is revealing, but the lack of specific reference to multistakeholderism is just a case of whoops, sorry, we forgot…? >> >> The thrust still feels pretty intergovernmental, as in "The Leaders...emphasized its potential to enhance IBSA’s profile as a key global player." >> >>> However, I think that the absence of multi-stakeholder participation as >>> a principle is very disappointing. It should have been mentioned upfront >>> in the section on global governance reform. There are other references >>> to participation from stakeholders.. but that is not enough. >>> >>> Human rights text is fairly good, as is the IP text. >> >> Yes >>> >>> Need to still read the whole document carefully. >> >> Yes >> >> http://www.pravasitoday.com/read-tshwane-declaration-at-5th-ibsa-summit >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >>> >>> On 19/10/11 18:24, William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 4:55 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >>>> >>>>> The leaders took note of the recommendations of the IBSA Workshop on >>>>> Global Internet Governance convened in Rio de Janeiro on 1-2 September >>>>> 2011 and resolved to jointly undertake necessary follow-up action. >>>> >>>> The leaders took no note of the global community's reactions to those >>>> recommendations during the Internet Governance Forum convened in Nairobi >>>> on 27-30 September 2011 and resolved to pretend it didn't happen. >>>> >>>>> 55. The Leaders emphasized Internet Governance as a key strategic area >>>>> that requires close collaboration and concrete action. In this >>>>> context, it recommended the establishment of an IBSA Internet >>>>> Governance and Development Observatory that should be tasked to >>>>> monitor developments on global Internet Governance and provide regular >>>>> updates and analyses from the perspective of developing countries. >>>> >>>> The leaders agreed that their initiative is really about IBSA rather >>>> than about the Internet, so global multistakeholder participation in the >>>> Observatory is not needed. >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 04:59:44 2011 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:59:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wow! Huge Big up to the Small Islands!!! Congrats Sala ... Best wishes for great success during your term. And many kudos to Jeremy for all of his work and dedication over the last period. He has indeed left a tangible legacy. Thanks Jeremy. Sincerely, Tracy On 10/20/11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly this is humbling and I thank you sincerely for your confidence and > hope to serve you. I would also like to thank my comrades Songitu, Asif and > Imran, and hope that you run again next year. > > I would also like to thank Jeremy for the nomination and Bill for seconding > it and all those that supported it. I do no intend to fill in nor try to > fill in Jeremy's shoes - they are far too big :) Jeremy as we all know has > done tremendous work and so I thank you Jeremy. I look forward to being > briefed by Jeremy and Izumi. > > I am actually in Seoul waiting for my flight to Dubai which leaves in 3 > hours. > > Again thank you for allowing me the privilege to be your serve you. > > Best Regards, > Sala > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing >> coordinator and returning officer. >> >> 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 >> (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) >> for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of >> the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who >> are encouraged to re-apply next year. >> >> 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already >> voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were >> not >> given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. >> >> In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their >> eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail >> of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a >> couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" >> option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines >> membership >> for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in >> the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was >> unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by >> my >> experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of >> the >> above" option. >> >> In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in >> my >> view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on >> the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to >> coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that >> such >> an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on >> all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate >> of >> candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid >> misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this >> year >> that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do >> you think? >> >> The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably >> within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her >> new >> role. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator* >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups >> that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent >> and >> authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member >> organisations >> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to >> help >> protect and empower consumers everywhere. >> *www.consumersinternational.org* >> *Twitter @ConsumersInt * >> >> Read our email confidentiality >> notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Oct 21 05:02:47 2011 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:02:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] ITU follies Message-ID: Kieren has the low down on the two week ITU Council meeting that concludes today. Of particular note, the Dedicated Group on international Internet-related public policy issues will become a full working group with a broad mandate and will remain strictly intergovernmental with its docs restricted to ITU members. However, it's supposed to hold open consultations. So we may be invited to provide input, just not to know what they're actually doing. And Saudi Arabia's campaigning for a "forum" in 2013 on Internet governance. http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/18/itu-council-meeting-summary Bill *************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake www.williamdrake.org **************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Oct 21 05:08:11 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:08:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA1367B.5010209@apc.org> Congratulations Sala! Anriette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 05:10:51 2011 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:40:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Sala. :) Sivasubramanian M On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing > coordinator and returning officer. > > 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 > (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) > for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of > the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who > are encouraged to re-apply next year. > > 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already > voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not > given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > > In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their > eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail > of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a > couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" > option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership > for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in > the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was > unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my > experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the > above" option. > > In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my > view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on > the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to > coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such > an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on > all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of > candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid > misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year > that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do > you think? > > The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably > within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new > role. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From philippe.blanchard at me.com Fri Oct 21 05:32:39 2011 From: philippe.blanchard at me.com (Philippe Blanchard) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:32:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14537F10-690A-4762-B31E-7A8C68882657@me.com> Congratulations to Sala but also to all the list participants for their commitment in implementing democracy. And many thanks to Jeremy who made it all possible. Philippe On 10/20/11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly this is humbling and I thank you sincerely for your confidence and > hope to serve you. I would also like to thank my comrades Songitu, Asif and > Imran, and hope that you run again next year. > > I would also like to thank Jeremy for the nomination and Bill for seconding > it and all those that supported it. I do no intend to fill in nor try to > fill in Jeremy's shoes - they are far too big :) Jeremy as we all know has > done tremendous work and so I thank you Jeremy. I look forward to being > briefed by Jeremy and Izumi. > > I am actually in Seoul waiting for my flight to Dubai which leaves in 3 > hours. > > Again thank you for allowing me the privilege to be your serve you. > > Best Regards, > Sala > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing >> coordinator and returning officer. >> >> 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 >> (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) >> for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of >> the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who >> are encouraged to re-apply next year. >> >> 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already >> voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were >> not >> given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. >> >> In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their >> eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail >> of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a >> couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" >> option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines >> membership >> for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in >> the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was >> unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by >> my >> experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of >> the >> above" option. >> >> In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in >> my >> view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on >> the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to >> coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that >> such >> an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on >> all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate >> of >> candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid >> misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this >> year >> that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do >> you think? >> >> The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably >> within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her >> new >> role. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator* >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups >> that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent >> and >> authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member >> organisations >> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to >> help >> protect and empower consumers everywhere. >> *www.consumersinternational.org* >> *Twitter @ConsumersInt * >> >> Read our email confidentiality >> notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Oct 21 05:33:49 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:33:49 +1100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Congratulations Sala, and many thanks to Jeremy who has done a fantastic job at a crucial time. From: Sivasubramanian M Reply-To: , Sivasubramanian M Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:40:51 +0530 To: , Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections Congratulations Sala. :) Sivasubramanian M On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing coordinator > and returning officer. > > 99 valid votes were cast.  Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 > (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) > for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro.  I declare Sala as the next coordinator of the > IGC.  Congratulations!  Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who are > encouraged to re-apply next year. > > 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already > voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not > given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > > In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their > eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail of > that opportunity.  This probably reflects the preference expressed by a couple > of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" option.  The > charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership for the > purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in the last > election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was unambiguously > constitutional.  I was probably also influenced in this by my experience of > other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the above" option. > > In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my > view we should include this in the charter explicitly.  I will put this on the > table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to coordinate > now that I have ended my term.  My personal opinion is that such an amendment > would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on all of us during > the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of candidates at least > one of whom everyone would be happy with.  (To avoid misunderstanding, I am > not imputing to those who voted informally this year that they were unhappy > with all of the candidates who stood.)  But what do you think? > > The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably > within the next 48 hours.  Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new > role. > > --  > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, > working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't print > this email unless necessary. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 05:34:34 2011 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:34:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC request for CSTD WG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good idea :-) On 21 October 2011 03:24, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > IGC members to CSTD WG on IGF improvement have discussed and agreed > to send the following request to the Chair asking for opening up of the WG > meeting to observers to increase transparency and openness. > > It is not our "official statement", so I plan to send this shortly as > co-moderator, but just to let you all know in advance. > > izumi > > ------- > > Dear Peter, > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) would like to ask > you as the new Chair of the CSTD Working Group on improving IGF to > open up the meeting to non-contributing observers as it will enhance > transparency and openness of our work. > > There are a number of potential observers from the civil society as well > as from other stakeholder groups, including governments, > business, and science and technical community, who may have good > access to meetings in Geneva and would be interested in sitting inside > the meeting room. > > We trust your wisdom and thank you very much for your kind consideration > in advance, > > Jeremy Malcolm and Izumi Aizu, > Co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > (Jeremy will be replaced by our new Co-coordinator, Salanieta > Tamanikaiwaimaro shortly) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Oct 21 05:30:21 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:30:21 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C648@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Sala the Summer School on Internet Governance (SSIG) is very proud that another "Meissen Fellow" has moved into an Internet Governance leadership position. Congratulations and best wishes. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Gesendet: Fr 21.10.2011 10:59 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; Jeremy Malcolm Betreff: Re: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections Wow! Huge Big up to the Small Islands!!! Congrats Sala ... Best wishes for great success during your term. And many kudos to Jeremy for all of his work and dedication over the last period. He has indeed left a tangible legacy. Thanks Jeremy. Sincerely, Tracy On 10/20/11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly this is humbling and I thank you sincerely for your confidence and > hope to serve you. I would also like to thank my comrades Songitu, Asif and > Imran, and hope that you run again next year. > > I would also like to thank Jeremy for the nomination and Bill for seconding > it and all those that supported it. I do no intend to fill in nor try to > fill in Jeremy's shoes - they are far too big :) Jeremy as we all know has > done tremendous work and so I thank you Jeremy. I look forward to being > briefed by Jeremy and Izumi. > > I am actually in Seoul waiting for my flight to Dubai which leaves in 3 > hours. > > Again thank you for allowing me the privilege to be your serve you. > > Best Regards, > Sala > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing >> coordinator and returning officer. >> >> 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 >> (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) >> for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of >> the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who >> are encouraged to re-apply next year. >> >> 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already >> voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were >> not >> given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. >> >> In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their >> eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail >> of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a >> couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" >> option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines >> membership >> for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in >> the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was >> unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by >> my >> experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of >> the >> above" option. >> >> In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in >> my >> view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on >> the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to >> coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that >> such >> an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on >> all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate >> of >> candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid >> misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this >> year >> that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do >> you think? >> >> The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably >> within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her >> new >> role. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator* >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups >> that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent >> and >> authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member >> organisations >> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to >> help >> protect and empower consumers everywhere. >> *www.consumersinternational.org* >> *Twitter @ConsumersInt * >> >> Read our email confidentiality >> notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 05:53:14 2011 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:53:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> Message-ID: Dear All I am a bit confused as to the use of the word "declaration" here. Is the word being used liberally? I was not there and the IBSA site is not much help. Let's be clear from the outset - I am not criticising the document, I am merely querying why it is being referred to as a declaration.The point I am making, is not about semantics, but rather about whether one might not risk putting too much importance on a document that was primarily meant to be a record of events. The document looks like an internal account of what transpired during the meeting - like a memo or minutes on the discussion of agenda items. It is written in the third person, so can it be taken to equate a declaration issued in the names of the three countries/ governments/ heads of state or government? Where is the "We" that indicates that whatever follows is indeed the will of the those that undersign it and is taken to mean that those who do so bind themselves to it? It is also written in the past tense, enumerating a whole list of "reiterated", "reaffirmed", "acknowledged", etc. It is about 80% inward looking, about what IBSA mechanisms have done and very little about what is commits itself to doing for society. Be it as it may that is is written in this format, who write it? Why is the author not identified, why is the due protocol for such a document not followed, according it the status of a declaration by signing it off with a mention of date and place. So, to recap, is this a declaration? Best regards, Rui 2011/10/19 Pranesh Prakash > Here's the relevant bit from the Tshwane Declaration. > > # Internet Governance > 52. The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to working together towards a > people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society and > their agreement to continue to coordinate positions for the World Summit on > Information Society (WSIS) follow-up mechanisms, as well as in the other > fora and organizations related to the Information Society and Information > and Communication Technologies (ICTs). > 53. The Leaders expressed their satisfaction with the ongoing work in this > arena; recognized the role of the Internet as a catalyst for economic and > social progress; and emphasized its potential to enhance IBSA’s profile as a > key global player. The leaders reaffirmed the IBSA framework agreement for > Cooperation on the Information Society adopted on September 13, 2006 and > recalled the commitments made in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and > the Tunis Agenda with regard to Enhanced Cooperation. > 54. The Leaders highlighted the importance of building a wide political > coalition at the international level for making the global internet > governance regime as multilateral, democratic and transparent as provided by > the WSIS. > > In this context, they reiterated the urgent need to operationalise the > process of ‘Enhanced Cooperation’ mandated by the Tunis Agenda and recalled, > with satisfaction, the fruitful coordination amongst IBSA countries in the > deliberations on ‘Enhanced Cooperation’ in the UN Commission on Science and > Technology for Development (CSTD) and in the UN Secretary-General’s Open > Consultations held in December 2010. The leaders took note of the > recommendations of the IBSA Workshop on Global Internet Governance convened > in Rio de Janeiro on 1-2 September 2011 and resolved to jointly undertake > necessary follow-up action. > 55. The Leaders emphasized Internet Governance as a key strategic area that > requires close collaboration and concrete action. In this context, it > recommended the establishment of an IBSA Internet Governance and Development > Observatory that should be tasked to monitor developments on global Internet > Governance and provide regular updates and analyses from the perspective of > developing countries. > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Programme Manager > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org > > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- _________________________ Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant _______________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Oct 21 06:33:57 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:33:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> Dear Bill and all I share Carlos Afonso's responses to this. A few more thoughts in response to Bill. On 21/10/11 10:29, William Drake wrote: > Hi Carlos > > On Oct 20, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> OK, my tokens on this: >> >> - It is obvious there was a shift and I am sure Brazil took into >> account our (BR ngos') insistent dialogue on the issues with them. > > I'm glad to hear this. Since you talk with the government a lot you > have a better vantage point from which to read what's behind the > words. Others have to go on what the words say, and they are not > crystal clear on the main point. If the notion of a new UN body that > would integrate and centralize and oversee and thereby solve all > problems has been abandoned, it'd be nice to hear that said in plain > language that doesn't require readers to engage in hermeneutics, > semiotics, deconstructionism, or related. Then all the folks who've > been concerned about this can de-clench and we can start to have a > probing and useful dialogue about better ways forward. There was definitely a substantial shift. I don't think it matters that IGF was not named, or giving any kind of attribution. It would be nice.. but I suspect there is still a concern among one or all of those governments about giving recognition to the IGF being used in intergovernmental negotiations as 'giving up on any further efforts towards enhanced cooperation'. This unfortunate trade off/or lack of it is the result of some governments and non-governmental actors insisting that 'enhanced cooperation is already happening through the IGF' (or something along those lines). It is a real pity.. and I did propose at the IBSA meeting in Rio that this kind of 'trading' stops... but I can see why the IBSA governments are holding on to it.. even if I don't agree. > BTW, do you know if we can assume then that there will not be a > proposal going to the UNGA? That is a really interesting question. I would not rule it out.. but I think it is less likely. >> - The Tshwane Declaration shows the IBSA efforts are far broader >> than Internet-related issues, and at least BR ngos are interested >> in the whole set of themes they are dealing with, not just whether >> Icann's butt will be kicked or not. > > And non-BR ngos often share those interests, so let's have a broader > discussion. Yes.. I think some of the IBSA statement positions on e.g. IPR are shared by many NGOs outside of the IBSA region. One of the reasons that IBSA governments have a progressive stance in this regard is because of many years of collaboration between NGOs in the south and NGOs in the north. My worry is that only the Brazilian government (among the three) are consistently applying progressive principles in domestic policy as well as in global forums. I don't know that much about Indian policy. but I do know that in South Africa much needed national copyright reform is not happening. >> - The "thrust" (whatever the meaning in this context) of the >> declaration of an intergovernmental meeting, Bill, is >> intergovernmental, what else would you expect? > > As you know, there have been quite a lot of intergovernmental > meetings of late that have issued declarations endorsing MS > approaches to IG. If the GAC, COE, OECD, et al can say it loud and > clear, why can't IBSA? Yes we know the Brazilian govt is friendly to > MS, but we don't know if IBSA now in fact sees open global MS > processes as the way to proceed on the issues with which it is > concerned. If yes, fabulous, they should say it and we will all tip > our hats accordingly. I agree that they should say it. I suspect that they don't yet have a unified position/and or common understanding of what they mean by 'multi-stakeholder participation'. They are all three broadly in support.. but degree and consistency of implementation varies enormously. In South Africa this is a constant site of struggle with civil society and activists (e.g. the Right to Know coalition) constantly having to put pressure on government to consult and maintain transparency. MS participation is not yet institutionalised, other than in the traditional 'labour/market/government' form. On the other hand...while saying it loud and clear as European and Western govs are doing is not enough. It needs to really work.. and MS participation still has a long way to go to really change power configurations. This is why Wolfgang et al's recent issue of MIND is interesting and important.. it deepens the thinking on this. >> >> I would insist our compas north of the Equator, and especially west >> of Greenwich :) be a bit more neutral when analyzing joint >> intergovernmental efforts from the South, > > Why should anyone be neutral? Your compas are opposed to bad ideas > irrespective of where they come from, what's wrong with that? Are > bad ideas less problematic if they're from the South? Hmmm :) I think our views of government initiatives are often informed by our histories and experiences. Bad ideas can be in the eyes of the beholder. I agree with you Bill, that we should not be neutral in responding to government actions that could infringe on rights/freedoms or that can create more barriers.. but I do agree with Carlos that there is a tendency (more so among the technical community than among civil society) to assume that developing country intergovernmental efforts are more sinister than intergovernmental efforts from the traditional 'western democracies'. (Not saying you are guilty of this Bill!) The whole IGF improvement debate is an example of this. There are also often knee jerk reactions from civil society in the 'global south'. We need to be consistently critical and careful. Cheers Anriette >> and always remember to take a look at their own govs' tails first. > > It's not obvious how this is relevant, but bad ideas from Northern > governments, including those that may have issued their passports, > have been routinely criticized by said compas since we launched this > list in 2003. In fact, these get probably 85% of the air time! > > Cheers, > > Bill > >> >> >> On 10/19/2011 04:05 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> Hi Anriette >>> >>> We just had this conversation bilaterally, but sure let's open it >>> up... >>> >>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Bill >>>> >>>> I think your response is a bit hasty. There are serious gaps.. >>>> e.g. the lack of emphasis on multi-stakeholder participation >>>> pointed out by Sivasubramanian, but overall I think the section >>>> on IG shows very clearly that the IBSA government >>>> representatives took reactions at the IGF to their proposal >>>> very seriously. >>> >>> As with many diplomatic texts, one can read it a number of ways. >>> I guess you read the absence of specific reference to a new UN >>> organization to "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible" >>> etc. as reflecting a shift. I read the larger thrust of the text >>> and its references to prior pronouncements etc and don't come >>> away confident there's an agreed shift, at least not yet. But >>> either way, if you're right they took reactions at the IGF to >>> their proposal very seriously, why not say that? Why not help >>> strengthen the IGF's position by underscoring its value and the >>> importance of global multistakeholder dialogue on this and >>> related matters? That's what I referred to, the no comment on >>> the IGF dialogue, … >>>> >>>> This is a very different text to what had been proposed, >>> >>> Do you mean the by the Rio recs, or something else? >>> >>>> and clearly indicates that there will be further discussion on >>>> the September meeting's recommendations, which is what civil >>>> society organisations from the three countries requested. >>>> >>>> Multi-stakeholder participation in the observatory is not >>>> mentioned, but it is also not excluded. My assumption is that >>>> this was an oversight, rather than a deliberate attempt to make >>>> it 'intergovernmental'. >>> >>> We are always being told, or telling ourselves, that the lack of >>> mention of multistakeholder participation in these things is an >>> oversight. Given all the heated discussions on the matter, I >>> find that increasingly difficult to swallow. The lack of >>> specific reference to a UN body is revealing, but the lack of >>> specific reference to multistakeholderism is just a case of >>> whoops, sorry, we forgot…? >>> >>> The thrust still feels pretty intergovernmental, as in "The >>> Leaders...emphasized its potential to enhance IBSA’s profile as a >>> key global player." >>> >>>> However, I think that the absence of multi-stakeholder >>>> participation as a principle is very disappointing. It should >>>> have been mentioned upfront in the section on global governance >>>> reform. There are other references to participation from >>>> stakeholders.. but that is not enough. >>>> >>>> Human rights text is fairly good, as is the IP text. >>> >>> Yes >>>> >>>> Need to still read the whole document carefully. >>> >>> Yes >>> >>> http://www.pravasitoday.com/read-tshwane-declaration-at-5th-ibsa-summit >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bill >>>> >>>> On 19/10/11 18:24, William Drake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 4:55 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The leaders took note of the recommendations of the IBSA >>>>>> Workshop on Global Internet Governance convened in Rio de >>>>>> Janeiro on 1-2 September 2011 and resolved to jointly >>>>>> undertake necessary follow-up action. >>>>> >>>>> The leaders took no note of the global community's reactions >>>>> to those recommendations during the Internet Governance Forum >>>>> convened in Nairobi on 27-30 September 2011 and resolved to >>>>> pretend it didn't happen. >>>>> >>>>>> 55. The Leaders emphasized Internet Governance as a key >>>>>> strategic area that requires close collaboration and >>>>>> concrete action. In this context, it recommended the >>>>>> establishment of an IBSA Internet Governance and >>>>>> Development Observatory that should be tasked to monitor >>>>>> developments on global Internet Governance and provide >>>>>> regular updates and analyses from the perspective of >>>>>> developing countries. >>>>> >>>>> The leaders agreed that their initiative is really about IBSA >>>>> rather than about the Internet, so global multistakeholder >>>>> participation in the Observatory is not needed. >>>> >>>> -- ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, >>>> association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box >>>> 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your >>>> profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile >> and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and > to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From naveedpta at hotmail.com Fri Oct 21 07:30:16 2011 From: naveedpta at hotmail.com (Naveed haq) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:30:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Dear Sala, Big Congrats on the selection. Wish you all the best while carrying out your work under this challenging and exciting position. Best Regards, Naveed-ul-Haq Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:26:52 +1200 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; jeremy at ciroap.org Subject: Re: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections Dear All, Firstly this is humbling and I thank you sincerely for your confidence and hope to serve you. I would also like to thank my comrades Songitu, Asif and Imran, and hope that you run again next year. I would also like to thank Jeremy for the nomination and Bill for seconding it and all those that supported it. I do no intend to fill in nor try to fill in Jeremy's shoes - they are far too big :) Jeremy as we all know has done tremendous work and so I thank you Jeremy. I look forward to being briefed by Jeremy and Izumi. I am actually in Seoul waiting for my flight to Dubai which leaves in 3 hours. Again thank you for allowing me the privilege to be your serve you. Best Regards, Sala On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing coordinator and returning officer. 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who are encouraged to re-apply next year. 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the above" option. In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do you think? The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new role. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaTSkype:Salanieta.TamanikaiwaimaroCell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Oct 21 07:32:59 2011 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:32:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> Message-ID: <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> Hi Anriette I agree with all your points, but one in particular merits consideration. On Oct 21, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > I agree with you Bill, that we should not be neutral in responding to > government actions that could infringe on rights/freedoms or that can > create more barriers.. but I do agree with Carlos that there is a > tendency (more so among the technical community than among civil > society) to assume that developing country intergovernmental efforts are > more sinister than intergovernmental efforts from the traditional > 'western democracies'. (Not saying you are guilty of this Bill!) > > The whole IGF improvement debate is an example of this. This is a barrier I wish we could somehow overcome. As long as developing country intergovernmental efforts on EC and in the ITU appear to have intergovernmental control as their end game and the IGF is getting tactically linked to this as you noted, one imagines the TC, business, and a lot of governments will remain wedded to the fear that an IGF that does more than meet and chat once a year would necessarily get leveraged to advance that agenda. And CS proponents of more intensive, structured and "outcome" oriented dialogues will remain isolated and frustrated. If intergovernmental control could be taken off the table, at least outside the ITU, that might help to make "IGF improvements" a less divisive topic. So again, if indeed IBSA has shifted, it'd be great for them to say so. And for more governments beyond Brazil and a distinct minority of other G77 to demonstrate that they take the IGF process seriously and will engage even if it doesn't offer a path to intergovernmental control. Too much to hope for? Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 21 08:07:11 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:37:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4EA1606F.9070106@itforchange.net> Hi All Let me join the party too :) . A lot of things that need response on the IBSA's Rio meeting and the what happened at the IGF vis a vis it, and now the Tshwane declaration, but let me just join in where we are at present in the discussion. On Friday 21 October 2011 01:59 PM, William Drake wrote: > Snip > I'm glad to hear this. Since you talk with the government a lot you have a better vantage point from which to read what's behind the words. Others have to go on what the words say, and they are not crystal clear on the main point. If the notion of a new UN body that would integrate and centralize and oversee and thereby solve all problems has been abandoned, it'd be nice to hear that said in plain language that doesn't require readers to engage in hermeneutics, semiotics, deconstructionism, or related. Then all the folks who've been concerned about this can de-clench and we can start to have a probing and useful dialogue about better ways forward. > My clear impression is that there is no desire among IBSA countries to 'integrate and centralise' (this later term is Bill's invention) technical functions of the Internet though the term 'integrate' did unfortunately (and inadvertently) get used in the Rio recs. The people in governments I met seem to agree that they did not mean the way it got read, and meant something closer to 'coordinate'. At the very basic level, what the IBSA governments seem to be asking for is to shift the current oversight functions from the US gov to a more democratic body. This has been a consistent position of developing countries for a long time, and the Tunis Agenda also recognises this as a clear problem. And yes, there are concerns about how legitimate public policy concerns may actually be communicated to many bodies with significant Internet related technical functions. I saw many countries other than IBSA very vocally state such concerns at the IGF, for instance those from the EU. I saw complete openness among the IBSA reps I spoke to on looking at different possible options of how to address these concerns, and look at different possible models to channel public policy concerns into the work of technical bodies. However, first of all, they see the need for a globally democratic platform where these concerns can be discussed and articulated clearly, which they want the proposed 'new body' to, inter alia, be doing. So, while we are criticising the proposal from other, often imagined, angles, it may be useful to clearly address these known concerns of developing countries. People (or countires) mostly would hear you more if they see you take on board and show willingness to discuss their 'main' concerns as well. > BTW, do you know if we can assume then that there will not be a proposal going to the UNGA? > I am not sure IBSA will make any such proposal, though I hope that they and others do come up with some clear proposals when the Gen Assembly specifically takes up the issue of 'enhanced cooperation' this year. It will be rather strange for developing countries to have fought hard six years ago for that 'place holder' of 'enhanced cooperation' in Tunis agenda for new globally democratic institutional developments in the IG arena , and having regularly asked for progress on this issues since, to say, when the GA actually formally takes the issue up, that we never knew what we were talking about. > Snip > As you know, there have been quite a lot of intergovernmental meetings of late that have issued declarations endorsing MS approaches to IG. If the GAC, COE, OECD, et al can say it loud and clear, why can't IBSA? Yes we know the Brazilian govt is friendly to MS, but we don't know if IBSA now in fact sees open global MS processes as the way to proceed on the issues with which it is concerned. If yes, fabulous, they should say it and we will all tip our hats accordingly. > Yes, multistakeholderism should have been there. Incidentally, it was there in the Rio recommendations (and no one tipped their hats :) ). Maybe IBSA countries simply got too disappointed :) > Why should anyone be neutral? Your compas are opposed to bad ideas irrespective of where they come from, what's wrong with that? Alas, if it only were so! For instance, to use my pet refrain now a days, if OECD's inter-governmental internet policy making processes were subject to same criticism, nay ridicule and disdain, to which the barest mention of a triggering proposal from IBSA gets. Just because they wanted to invite all the 'evil minded' developing country governments too to the party of global Internet related policy making. Before we dont become neutral, maybe we have to become a little neutral so that we first puts thing on the same starting line or near about. parminder > It's not obvious how this is relevant, but bad ideas from Northern governments, including those that may have issued their passports, have been routinely criticized by said compas since we launched this list in 2003. In fact, these get probably 85% of the air time! > > Cheers, > > Bill > > >> >> On 10/19/2011 04:05 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> Hi Anriette >>> >>> We just had this conversation bilaterally, but sure let's open it up... >>> >>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi Bill >>>> >>>> I think your response is a bit hasty. There are serious gaps.. e.g. the >>>> lack of emphasis on multi-stakeholder participation pointed out by >>>> Sivasubramanian, but overall I think the section on IG shows very >>>> clearly that the IBSA government representatives took reactions at the >>>> IGF to their proposal very seriously. >>>> >>> As with many diplomatic texts, one can read it a number of ways. I guess you read the absence of specific reference to a new UN organization to "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible" etc. as reflecting a shift. I read the larger thrust of the text and its references to prior pronouncements etc and don't come away confident there's an agreed shift, at least not yet. But either way, if you're right they took reactions at the IGF to their proposal very seriously, why not say that? Why not help strengthen the IGF's position by underscoring its value and the importance of global multistakeholder dialogue on this and related matters? That's what I referred to, the no comment on the IGF dialogue, … >>> >>>> This is a very different text to what had been proposed, >>>> >>> Do you mean the by the Rio recs, or something else? >>> >>> >>>> and clearly >>>> indicates that there will be further discussion on the September >>>> meeting's recommendations, which is what civil society organisations >>>> from the three countries requested. >>>> >>>> Multi-stakeholder participation in the observatory is not mentioned, but >>>> it is also not excluded. My assumption is that this was an oversight, >>>> rather than a deliberate attempt to make it 'intergovernmental'. >>>> >>> We are always being told, or telling ourselves, that the lack of mention of multistakeholder participation in these things is an oversight. Given all the heated discussions on the matter, I find that increasingly difficult to swallow. The lack of specific reference to a UN body is revealing, but the lack of specific reference to multistakeholderism is just a case of whoops, sorry, we forgot…? >>> >>> The thrust still feels pretty intergovernmental, as in "The Leaders...emphasized its potential to enhance IBSA’s profile as a key global player." >>> >>> >>>> However, I think that the absence of multi-stakeholder participation as >>>> a principle is very disappointing. It should have been mentioned upfront >>>> in the section on global governance reform. There are other references >>>> to participation from stakeholders.. but that is not enough. >>>> >>>> Human rights text is fairly good, as is the IP text. >>>> >>> Yes >>> >>>> Need to still read the whole document carefully. >>>> >>> Yes >>> >>> http://www.pravasitoday.com/read-tshwane-declaration-at-5th-ibsa-summit >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> On 19/10/11 18:24, William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 4:55 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The leaders took note of the recommendations of the IBSA Workshop on >>>>>> Global Internet Governance convened in Rio de Janeiro on 1-2 September >>>>>> 2011 and resolved to jointly undertake necessary follow-up action. >>>>>> >>>>> The leaders took no note of the global community's reactions to those >>>>> recommendations during the Internet Governance Forum convened in Nairobi >>>>> on 27-30 September 2011 and resolved to pretend it didn't happen. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 55. The Leaders emphasized Internet Governance as a key strategic area >>>>>> that requires close collaboration and concrete action. In this >>>>>> context, it recommended the establishment of an IBSA Internet >>>>>> Governance and Development Observatory that should be tasked to >>>>>> monitor developments on global Internet Governance and provide regular >>>>>> updates and analyses from the perspective of developing countries. >>>>>> >>>>> The leaders agreed that their initiative is really about IBSA rather >>>>> than about the Internet, so global multistakeholder participation in the >>>>> Observatory is not needed. >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>> www.apc.org >>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>> south africa >>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Oct 21 08:25:03 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:25:03 -0200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA1649F.3090404@cafonso.ca> Congrats to Sala! fraternal regards --c.a. On 10/20/2011 09:18 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing coordinator and returning officer. > > 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who are encouraged to re-apply next year. > > 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > > In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the above" option. > > In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do you think? > > The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new role. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Oct 21 08:27:28 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:27:28 -0200 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> Message-ID: <4EA16530.3090408@cafonso.ca> Very good points, Rui. --c.a. On 10/21/2011 07:53 AM, Rui Correia wrote: > Dear All > > I am a bit confused as to the use of the word "declaration" here. Is the > word being used liberally? I was not there and the IBSA site is not much > help. > > Let's be clear from the outset - I am not criticising the document, I am > merely querying why it is being referred to as a declaration.The point I am > making, is not about semantics, but rather about whether one might not risk > putting too much importance on a document that was primarily meant to be a > record of events. > > The document looks like an internal account of what transpired during the > meeting - like a memo or minutes on the discussion of agenda items. > > It is written in the third person, so can it be taken to equate a > declaration issued in the names of the three countries/ governments/ heads > of state or government? Where is the "We" that indicates that whatever > follows is indeed the will of the those that undersign it and is taken to > mean that those who do so bind themselves to it? > > It is also written in the past tense, enumerating a whole list of > "reiterated", "reaffirmed", "acknowledged", etc. It is about 80% inward > looking, about what IBSA mechanisms have done and very little about what is > commits itself to doing for society. > > Be it as it may that is is written in this format, who write it? Why is the > author not identified, why is the due protocol for such a document not > followed, according it the status of a declaration by signing it off with a > mention of date and place. > > So, to recap, is this a declaration? > > Best regards, > > Rui > > > > 2011/10/19 Pranesh Prakash > >> Here's the relevant bit from the Tshwane Declaration. >> >> # Internet Governance >> 52. The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to working together towards a >> people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society and >> their agreement to continue to coordinate positions for the World Summit on >> Information Society (WSIS) follow-up mechanisms, as well as in the other >> fora and organizations related to the Information Society and Information >> and Communication Technologies (ICTs). >> 53. The Leaders expressed their satisfaction with the ongoing work in this >> arena; recognized the role of the Internet as a catalyst for economic and >> social progress; and emphasized its potential to enhance IBSA’s profile as a >> key global player. The leaders reaffirmed the IBSA framework agreement for >> Cooperation on the Information Society adopted on September 13, 2006 and >> recalled the commitments made in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and >> the Tunis Agenda with regard to Enhanced Cooperation. >> 54. The Leaders highlighted the importance of building a wide political >> coalition at the international level for making the global internet >> governance regime as multilateral, democratic and transparent as provided by >> the WSIS. >> >> In this context, they reiterated the urgent need to operationalise the >> process of ‘Enhanced Cooperation’ mandated by the Tunis Agenda and recalled, >> with satisfaction, the fruitful coordination amongst IBSA countries in the >> deliberations on ‘Enhanced Cooperation’ in the UN Commission on Science and >> Technology for Development (CSTD) and in the UN Secretary-General’s Open >> Consultations held in December 2010. The leaders took note of the >> recommendations of the IBSA Workshop on Global Internet Governance convened >> in Rio de Janeiro on 1-2 September 2011 and resolved to jointly undertake >> necessary follow-up action. >> 55. The Leaders emphasized Internet Governance as a key strategic area that >> requires close collaboration and concrete action. In this context, it >> recommended the establishment of an IBSA Internet Governance and Development >> Observatory that should be tasked to monitor developments on global Internet >> Governance and provide regular updates and analyses from the perspective of >> developing countries. >> -- >> Pranesh Prakash >> Programme Manager >> Centre for Internet and Society >> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org >> >> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Oct 21 08:33:58 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:33:58 -0200 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> Message-ID: <4EA166B6.2000701@cafonso.ca> I agree with Bill that "neutral" is not a proper word -- I should have said "biased" just to express what Anriette aptly clarifies. frt rgds --c.a. On 10/21/2011 08:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Bill and all > > I share Carlos Afonso's responses to this. A few more thoughts in > response to Bill. > > On 21/10/11 10:29, William Drake wrote: >> Hi Carlos >> >> On Oct 20, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> OK, my tokens on this: >>> >>> - It is obvious there was a shift and I am sure Brazil took into >>> account our (BR ngos') insistent dialogue on the issues with them. >> >> I'm glad to hear this. Since you talk with the government a lot you >> have a better vantage point from which to read what's behind the >> words. Others have to go on what the words say, and they are not >> crystal clear on the main point. If the notion of a new UN body that >> would integrate and centralize and oversee and thereby solve all >> problems has been abandoned, it'd be nice to hear that said in plain >> language that doesn't require readers to engage in hermeneutics, >> semiotics, deconstructionism, or related. Then all the folks who've >> been concerned about this can de-clench and we can start to have a >> probing and useful dialogue about better ways forward. > > There was definitely a substantial shift. I don't think it matters that > IGF was not named, or giving any kind of attribution. It would be > nice.. but I suspect there is still a concern among one or all of those > governments about giving recognition to the IGF being used in > intergovernmental negotiations as 'giving up on any further efforts > towards enhanced cooperation'. > > This unfortunate trade off/or lack of it is the result of some > governments and non-governmental actors insisting that 'enhanced > cooperation is already happening through the IGF' (or something along > those lines). > > It is a real pity.. and I did propose at the IBSA meeting in Rio that > this kind of 'trading' stops... but I can see why the IBSA governments > are holding on to it.. even if I don't agree. > >> BTW, do you know if we can assume then that there will not be a >> proposal going to the UNGA? > > That is a really interesting question. I would not rule it out.. but I > think it is less likely. > >>> - The Tshwane Declaration shows the IBSA efforts are far broader >>> than Internet-related issues, and at least BR ngos are interested >>> in the whole set of themes they are dealing with, not just whether >>> Icann's butt will be kicked or not. >> >> And non-BR ngos often share those interests, so let's have a broader >> discussion. > > Yes.. I think some of the IBSA statement positions on e.g. IPR are > shared by many NGOs outside of the IBSA region. One of the reasons that > IBSA governments have a progressive stance in this regard is because of > many years of collaboration between NGOs in the south and NGOs in the north. > > My worry is that only the Brazilian government (among the three) are > consistently applying progressive principles in domestic policy as well > as in global forums. I don't know that much about Indian policy. but I > do know that in South Africa much needed national copyright reform is > not happening. > >>> - The "thrust" (whatever the meaning in this context) of the >>> declaration of an intergovernmental meeting, Bill, is >>> intergovernmental, what else would you expect? >> >> As you know, there have been quite a lot of intergovernmental >> meetings of late that have issued declarations endorsing MS >> approaches to IG. If the GAC, COE, OECD, et al can say it loud and >> clear, why can't IBSA? Yes we know the Brazilian govt is friendly to >> MS, but we don't know if IBSA now in fact sees open global MS >> processes as the way to proceed on the issues with which it is >> concerned. If yes, fabulous, they should say it and we will all tip >> our hats accordingly. > > I agree that they should say it. I suspect that they don't yet have a > unified position/and or common understanding of what they mean by > 'multi-stakeholder participation'. They are all three broadly in > support.. but degree and consistency of implementation varies > enormously. In South Africa this is a constant site of struggle with > civil society and activists (e.g. the Right to Know coalition) > constantly having to put pressure on government to consult and maintain > transparency. MS participation is not yet institutionalised, other than > in the traditional 'labour/market/government' form. > > On the other hand...while saying it loud and clear as European and > Western govs are doing is not enough. It needs to really work.. and MS > participation still has a long way to go to really change power > configurations. This is why Wolfgang et al's recent issue of MIND is > interesting and important.. it deepens the thinking on this. >>> >>> I would insist our compas north of the Equator, and especially west >>> of Greenwich :) be a bit more neutral when analyzing joint >>> intergovernmental efforts from the South, >> >> Why should anyone be neutral? Your compas are opposed to bad ideas >> irrespective of where they come from, what's wrong with that? Are >> bad ideas less problematic if they're from the South? > > Hmmm :) I think our views of government initiatives are often informed > by our histories and experiences. Bad ideas can be in the eyes of the > beholder. > > I agree with you Bill, that we should not be neutral in responding to > government actions that could infringe on rights/freedoms or that can > create more barriers.. but I do agree with Carlos that there is a > tendency (more so among the technical community than among civil > society) to assume that developing country intergovernmental efforts are > more sinister than intergovernmental efforts from the traditional > 'western democracies'. (Not saying you are guilty of this Bill!) > > The whole IGF improvement debate is an example of this. > > There are also often knee jerk reactions from civil society in the > 'global south'. We need to be consistently critical and careful. > > Cheers > > Anriette > > >>> and always remember to take a look at their own govs' tails first. >> >> It's not obvious how this is relevant, but bad ideas from Northern >> governments, including those that may have issued their passports, >> have been routinely criticized by said compas since we launched this >> list in 2003. In fact, these get probably 85% of the air time! >> > >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> >>> >>> >>> On 10/19/2011 04:05 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>> Hi Anriette >>>> >>>> We just had this conversation bilaterally, but sure let's open it >>>> up... >>>> >>>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Bill >>>>> >>>>> I think your response is a bit hasty. There are serious gaps.. >>>>> e.g. the lack of emphasis on multi-stakeholder participation >>>>> pointed out by Sivasubramanian, but overall I think the section >>>>> on IG shows very clearly that the IBSA government >>>>> representatives took reactions at the IGF to their proposal >>>>> very seriously. >>>> >>>> As with many diplomatic texts, one can read it a number of ways. >>>> I guess you read the absence of specific reference to a new UN >>>> organization to "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible" >>>> etc. as reflecting a shift. I read the larger thrust of the text >>>> and its references to prior pronouncements etc and don't come >>>> away confident there's an agreed shift, at least not yet. But >>>> either way, if you're right they took reactions at the IGF to >>>> their proposal very seriously, why not say that? Why not help >>>> strengthen the IGF's position by underscoring its value and the >>>> importance of global multistakeholder dialogue on this and >>>> related matters? That's what I referred to, the no comment on >>>> the IGF dialogue, … >>>>> >>>>> This is a very different text to what had been proposed, >>>> >>>> Do you mean the by the Rio recs, or something else? >>>> >>>>> and clearly indicates that there will be further discussion on >>>>> the September meeting's recommendations, which is what civil >>>>> society organisations from the three countries requested. >>>>> >>>>> Multi-stakeholder participation in the observatory is not >>>>> mentioned, but it is also not excluded. My assumption is that >>>>> this was an oversight, rather than a deliberate attempt to make >>>>> it 'intergovernmental'. >>>> >>>> We are always being told, or telling ourselves, that the lack of >>>> mention of multistakeholder participation in these things is an >>>> oversight. Given all the heated discussions on the matter, I >>>> find that increasingly difficult to swallow. The lack of >>>> specific reference to a UN body is revealing, but the lack of >>>> specific reference to multistakeholderism is just a case of >>>> whoops, sorry, we forgot…? >>>> >>>> The thrust still feels pretty intergovernmental, as in "The >>>> Leaders...emphasized its potential to enhance IBSA’s profile as a >>>> key global player." >>>> >>>>> However, I think that the absence of multi-stakeholder >>>>> participation as a principle is very disappointing. It should >>>>> have been mentioned upfront in the section on global governance >>>>> reform. There are other references to participation from >>>>> stakeholders.. but that is not enough. >>>>> >>>>> Human rights text is fairly good, as is the IP text. >>>> >>>> Yes >>>>> >>>>> Need to still read the whole document carefully. >>>> >>>> Yes >>>> >>>> http://www.pravasitoday.com/read-tshwane-declaration-at-5th-ibsa-summit >>>> >>>> >>>> > Cheers, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> On 19/10/11 18:24, William Drake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 4:55 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The leaders took note of the recommendations of the IBSA >>>>>>> Workshop on Global Internet Governance convened in Rio de >>>>>>> Janeiro on 1-2 September 2011 and resolved to jointly >>>>>>> undertake necessary follow-up action. >>>>>> >>>>>> The leaders took no note of the global community's reactions >>>>>> to those recommendations during the Internet Governance Forum >>>>>> convened in Nairobi on 27-30 September 2011 and resolved to >>>>>> pretend it didn't happen. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 55. The Leaders emphasized Internet Governance as a key >>>>>>> strategic area that requires close collaboration and >>>>>>> concrete action. In this context, it recommended the >>>>>>> establishment of an IBSA Internet Governance and >>>>>>> Development Observatory that should be tasked to monitor >>>>>>> developments on global Internet Governance and provide >>>>>>> regular updates and analyses from the perspective of >>>>>>> developing countries. >>>>>> >>>>>> The leaders agreed that their initiative is really about IBSA >>>>>> rather than about the Internet, so global multistakeholder >>>>>> participation in the Observatory is not needed. >>>>> >>>>> -- ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, >>>>> association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box >>>>> 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your >>>>> profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ You >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile >>> and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and >> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 09:10:50 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:10:50 -0200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <4EA1649F.3090404@cafonso.ca> References: <4EA1649F.3090404@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Congratulations, Sala! I am happy that we will have such an active woman as a co-coordinator! Jeremy, I would like to thank you very much for your dedication to IGC. You managed to strike a delicate balance between the "neutrality" position required to foster convergences and to achieve commons understandings, while also advancing your person contributions to the discussions, as an IGC member. This is something that should inspire all future IGC coordinators. Also, you left us with a rich legacy: a very useful online platform that we can use as focal point for IGC external communication as well as for our internal memory. It is up to us to take more advantage from it and use it wisely. Thanks you! Marília On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Congrats to Sala! > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 10/20/2011 09:18 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing > coordinator and returning officer. > > > > 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 > (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) > for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of > the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who > are encouraged to re-apply next year. > > > > 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already > voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not > given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > > > > In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their > eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail > of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a > couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" > option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership > for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in > the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was > unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my > experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the > above" option. > > > > In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in > my view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this > on the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to > coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such > an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on > all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of > candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid > misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year > that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do > you think? > > > > The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably > within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new > role. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 09:31:18 2011 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:31:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Sala, Really great to see you in this position. and thanks to Jeremy for the good work. Best Bertrand On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing > coordinator and returning officer. > > 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 > (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) > for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of > the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who > are encouraged to re-apply next year. > > 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already > voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not > given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > > In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their > eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail > of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a > couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" > option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership > for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in > the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was > unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my > experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the > above" option. > > In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my > view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on > the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to > coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such > an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on > all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of > candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid > misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year > that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do > you think? > > The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably > within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new > role. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From julian at colnodo.apc.org Fri Oct 21 09:41:31 2011 From: julian at colnodo.apc.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Juli=E1n_Casasbuenas_G=2E=22?=) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:41:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA1768B.4000405@colnodo.apc.org> Congratulations Sara, Julián El 20/10/11 06:18, Jeremy Malcolm escribió: > Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing coordinator > and returning officer. > > 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 > (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) > for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of the > IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who are > encouraged to re-apply next year. > > 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already > voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not > given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > > In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their > eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail of > that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a couple > of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" option. The > charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership for the > purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in the last > election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was unambiguously > constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my experience of > other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the above" option. > > In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my > view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on the > table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to coordinate > now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such an amendment > would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on all of us during > the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of candidates at least > one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid misunderstanding, I am > not imputing to those who voted informally this year that they were unhappy > with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do you think? > > The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably > within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new role. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, > working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > _www.consumersinternational.org _ > _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't print > this email unless necessary. > > -- Julian Casasbuenas G. Director Colnodo Diagonal 40A (Antigua Av. 39) No. 14-75, Bogota, Colombia Tel: 57-1-2324246, Cel. 57-315-3339099 Fax: 57-1-3380264 Twitter @jcasasbuenas www.colnodo.apc.org - Uso Estratégico de Internet para el Desarrollo Miembro de la Asociacion para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones -APC- www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 09:46:56 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:46:56 -0200 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> Message-ID: I agree with what Carlos and Anriette have already said. After some asking-around, what I could understand was that: a) The absence of a clear mention to "multistakeholderism" does not mean a setback on the position the countries had in Rio (transparent, democratic, multistakeholder, multilateral IG). It is more related to the long hours of work of a small and overstreched drafting group, with several topics in hand. b) The set of recommendations from Rio, as they read (eg. new UN body, etc), will not be forwarded to the UN GA. I don´t know exactly what will be tabled regarding EC, but conversations with non-gov actors during the IGF did have an impact. Marília -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 10:18:28 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:18:28 -0200 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> Message-ID: I would like to focus on what Bill has mentioned. I believe it is a very important topic, given the fact that we are close to the CSTD WG meeting and "outcomes" will be an important topic: > > This is a barrier I wish we could somehow overcome. As long as developing > country intergovernmental efforts on EC and in the ITU appear to > have intergovernmental control as their end game and the IGF is getting > tactically linked to this as you noted, one imagines the TC, business, and a > lot of governments will remain wedded to the fear that an IGF that does more > than meet and chat once a year would necessarily get leveraged to advance > that agenda. And CS proponents of more intensive, structured and "outcome" > oriented dialogues will remain isolated and frustrated. > If intergovernmental control could be taken off the table, at least outside > the ITU, that might help to make "IGF improvements" a less divisive topic. > I think we should separate the two topics, IGF improvements and enhanced cooperation. They are related, but they are different topics. And I personally think that a more outcome oriented IGF would be beneficial with our without the implementation of enhanced cooperation. - regardless of future scenarios, there is currently a growing demand for the IGF to produce more concrete outcomes, in the format of a mapping of policy options (many developing countries, part of CS, some EU countries - and the EU itself - some business, etc) have been in favor of this idea. A more outcome oriented IGF would help us increase the relevance of the forum, to value and make a better use of our rich discussions, to link them with other organizations and to provide inputs to their policy-making, etc... A more outcome oriented IGF would be an empowered IGF, and, consequently, of a "multistakeholder way" of discussing topics related to IG. - The IGF cannot be leveraged to become THE enhanced cooperation mechanism, as some people fear, for several reasons that have been mentioned before. As far as I understand, no actor or group is proposing to change the IGF so it would embody EC per se. This is exactly because a "new body" is mentioned, to make the difference. - If a new enhanced cooperation mechanism does come into existence (it is hard to picture that hypothesis, because there is no clear model for it), I believe that an empowered and more-outcome oriented IGF could be a good way to exercise more influence on the decisions of this mechanism: a) If an EC mechanism is implemented with multistakeholder composition, it would be very important to have an open forum for dialogue where policy options, pros, and cons can be debated with the whole community, before they are fed into such a mechanism. That would "guide" and strengthen the actions of non-gov participants. b) If EC is implemented and it is not multistakeholder (or if non-gov actors have a less important role in it), then clear policy options that have been "put to the test" of an open debate in the IGF, would gain legitimacy and resilence and become an important instrument for agenda-setting, for providing inputs and putting pressure on the mechanism. Anyway, my point is: in any scenario, a more outcome oriented IGF, that would come up with policy options, seems to be a good way forward. Best wishes, Marília -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fatimacambronero at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 11:46:46 2011 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:46:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <4EA1768B.4000405@colnodo.apc.org> References: <4EA1768B.4000405@colnodo.apc.org> Message-ID: Congratulations Sala! And thanks to Jeremy. Best, Fatima 2011/10/21 "Julián Casasbuenas G." > ** > > Congratulations Sara, > > Julián > > El 20/10/11 06:18, Jeremy Malcolm escribió: > > Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing > coordinator and returning officer. > > 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 > (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) > for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of > the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who > are encouraged to re-apply next year. > > 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already > voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not > given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > > In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their > eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail > of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a > couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" > option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership > for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in > the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was > unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my > experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the > above" option. > > In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in > my view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this > on the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to > coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such > an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on > all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of > candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid > misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year > that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do > you think? > > The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably > within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new > role. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > -- > > Julian Casasbuenas G. > Director Colnodo > Diagonal 40A (Antigua Av. 39) No. 14-75, Bogota, Colombia > Tel: 57-1-2324246, Cel. 57-315-3339099 Fax: 57-1-3380264 > Twitter @jcasasbuenaswww.colnodo.apc.org - Uso Estratégico de Internet para el Desarrollo > Miembro de la Asociacion para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones -APC-www.apc.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Directora de Investigaciones *AGEIA DENSI Argentina* http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ *@facambronero* *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 21 13:38:48 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:38:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <3a53e.6c6bb92c.3bd1615a@aol.com> (KovenRonald@aol.com) References: <3a53e.6c6bb92c.3bd1615a@aol.com> Message-ID: <20111021173849.17AE715C373@quill.bollow.ch> Rony Koven wrote: > I didn't vote because i didn't get a very clear idea who the candidates > were. But I still want to be active in the IGC. I therefore think > there should be a way to vote, exoressing interest in the IGC, > without stating a preference for a candidate. I agree. How about adding, in future elections, the following three options? * "I support all of the candidates, equally" * "I support none of the candidates" * "I feel unable to express support for any particular candidate, but want to express confidence that whoever wins this election will be a good co-coordinator." 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 rivaldo.kpadonou at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 14:02:17 2011 From: rivaldo.kpadonou at gmail.com (Rivaldo Kpadonou) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:02:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: <4EA1768B.4000405@colnodo.apc.org> Message-ID: Congratulations Sala! Best Rivaldo 2011/10/21, Fatima Cambronero : > Congratulations Sala! > > And thanks to Jeremy. > > Best, > > Fatima > > > 2011/10/21 "Julián Casasbuenas G." > >> ** >> >> Congratulations Sara, >> >> Julián >> >> El 20/10/11 06:18, Jeremy Malcolm escribió: >> >> Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing >> coordinator and returning officer. >> >> 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 >> (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) >> for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of >> the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who >> are encouraged to re-apply next year. >> >> 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already >> voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were >> not >> given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. >> >> In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their >> eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail >> of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a >> couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" >> option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines >> membership >> for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in >> the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was >> unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by >> my >> experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of >> the >> above" option. >> >> In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in >> my view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this >> on the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to >> coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that >> such >> an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on >> all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate >> of >> candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid >> misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this >> year >> that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do >> you think? >> >> The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably >> within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her >> new >> role. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator* >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups >> that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent >> and >> authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member >> organisations >> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to >> help >> protect and empower consumers everywhere. >> *www.consumersinternational.org* >> *Twitter @ConsumersInt * >> >> Read our email confidentiality >> notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> -- >> >> Julian Casasbuenas G. >> Director Colnodo >> Diagonal 40A (Antigua Av. 39) No. 14-75, Bogota, Colombia >> Tel: 57-1-2324246, Cel. 57-315-3339099 Fax: 57-1-3380264 >> Twitter @jcasasbuenaswww.colnodo.apc.org - Uso Estratégico de Internet >> para el Desarrollo >> Miembro de la Asociacion para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones >> -APC-www.apc.org >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > > -- > *Fatima Cambronero* > Abogada-Argentina > Directora de Investigaciones > *AGEIA DENSI Argentina* > http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ > > *@facambronero* > > *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Fri Oct 21 14:10:55 2011 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:10:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <20111021173849.17AE715C373@quill.bollow.ch> References: <3a53e.6c6bb92c.3bd1615a@aol.com>,<20111021173849.17AE715C373@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I think rules of voting all over are about expresssing a preference and the fact that one feels confident in being led by their prefered candidate. Let me also congratulate Sala and express my gratitude to Jeremy for the good work, and in particular for creating this platform. It became so useful for mobilisation and also for coordinating our statements and strategy during the recently ended IGF in Nairobi. Rgds Grace ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have the strength to survive, you have the power to succeed. Life is all about choices we make depending upon the situation we are in. Go forth and rule the World! > From: nb at bollow.ch > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:38:48 +0200 > Subject: Re: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections > > Rony Koven wrote: > > I didn't vote because i didn't get a very clear idea who the candidates > > were. But I still want to be active in the IGC. I therefore think > > there should be a way to vote, exoressing interest in the IGC, > > without stating a preference for a candidate. > > I agree. > > How about adding, in future elections, the following three options? > > * "I support all of the candidates, equally" > * "I support none of the candidates" > * "I feel unable to express support for any particular candidate, > but want to express confidence that whoever wins this election > will be a good co-coordinator." > > Greetings, > Norbert > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 14:23:41 2011 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:23:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: <3a53e.6c6bb92c.3bd1615a@aol.com> <20111021173849.17AE715C373@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: All the best to Sala Aaron On 10/21/11, Grace Githaiga wrote: > > > I think rules of voting all over are about expresssing a preference and the > fact that one feels confident in being led by their prefered candidate. > > Let me also congratulate Sala and express my gratitude to Jeremy for the > good work, and in particular for creating this platform. It became so useful > for mobilisation and also for coordinating our statements and strategy > during the recently ended IGF in Nairobi. > > Rgds > Grace > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > If you have the strength to survive, you have the power to succeed. Life is > all about choices we make depending upon the situation we are in. Go forth > and rule the World! > > > >> From: nb at bollow.ch >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:38:48 +0200 >> Subject: Re: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC >> coordinator elections >> >> Rony Koven wrote: >> > I didn't vote because i didn't get a very clear idea who the candidates >> > were. But I still want to be active in the IGC. I therefore think >> > there should be a way to vote, exoressing interest in the IGC, >> > without stating a preference for a candidate. >> >> I agree. >> >> How about adding, in future elections, the following three options? >> >> * "I support all of the candidates, equally" >> * "I support none of the candidates" >> * "I feel unable to express support for any particular candidate, >> but want to express confidence that whoever wins this election >> will be a good co-coordinator." >> >> 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 >> > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant to Tha President ASAFE Telephone:237 33 01 30 13 P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 14:43:21 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:43:21 +0500 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Sala and Thank You for all your wonderful hard work Jeremy! Sala, its great to see you making in roads to both IGC and ICANN/ALAC from the AP/Australasia regions with your strong contributions. It will be wonderful to have your contributions that bring a mix of corporate, civil society and regulatory experience that we already widely witness on the list and yes, it was good to meetup during the IGF last month! Always good to see Diplo/ISOC NGL leaders emerging! Good luck and yes IGC, great choice! Best Fouad da FooDaByte! On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing coordinator > and returning officer. > 99 valid votes were cast.  Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 > (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) > for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro.  I declare Sala as the next coordinator of > the IGC.  Congratulations!  Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who > are encouraged to re-apply next year. > 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already > voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not > given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their > eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail > of that opportunity.  This probably reflects the preference expressed by a > couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" > option.  The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership > for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in > the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was > unambiguously constitutional.  I was probably also influenced in this by my > experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the > above" option. > In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my > view we should include this in the charter explicitly.  I will put this on > the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to > coordinate now that I have ended my term.  My personal opinion is that such > an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on > all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of > candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with.  (To avoid > misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year > that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.)  But what do > you think? > The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably > within the next 48 hours.  Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new > role. > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 15:21:48 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:21:48 +1200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <4EA1367B.5010209@apc.org> References: <4EA1367B.5010209@apc.org> Message-ID: Thank you Anriette :) 2011/10/21 Anriette Esterhuysen > > Congratulations Sala! > > Anriette > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 15:46:38 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:46:38 +1200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: <4EA1768B.4000405@colnodo.apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks Rivaldo :) On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Rivaldo Kpadonou < rivaldo.kpadonou at gmail.com> wrote: > Congratulations Sala! > Best > Rivaldo > > 2011/10/21, Fatima Cambronero : > > Congratulations Sala! > > > > And thanks to Jeremy. > > > > Best, > > > > Fatima > > > > > > 2011/10/21 "Julián Casasbuenas G." > > > >> ** > >> > >> Congratulations Sara, > >> > >> Julián > >> > >> El 20/10/11 06:18, Jeremy Malcolm escribió: > >> > >> Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing > >> coordinator and returning officer. > >> > >> 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, > 26 > >> (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 > (48.57%) > >> for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator > of > >> the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, > who > >> are encouraged to re-apply next year. > >> > >> 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had > already > >> voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were > >> not > >> given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > >> > >> In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified > their > >> eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not > avail > >> of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by > a > >> couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" > >> option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines > >> membership > >> for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted > in > >> the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was > >> unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by > >> my > >> experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of > >> the > >> above" option. > >> > >> In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", > in > >> my view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put > this > >> on the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered > to > >> coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that > >> such > >> an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility > on > >> all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate > >> of > >> candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid > >> misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this > >> year > >> that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what > do > >> you think? > >> > >> The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, > probably > >> within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her > >> new > >> role. > >> > >> -- > >> > >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > >> Project Coordinator* > >> Consumers International > >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > >> Malaysia > >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >> > >> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > >> that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent > >> and > >> authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member > >> organisations > >> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to > >> help > >> protect and empower consumers everywhere. > >> *www.consumersinternational.org* > >> *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > >> > >> Read our email confidentiality > >> notice. > >> Don't print this email unless necessary. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Julian Casasbuenas G. > >> Director Colnodo > >> Diagonal 40A (Antigua Av. 39) No. 14-75, Bogota, Colombia > >> Tel: 57-1-2324246, Cel. 57-315-3339099 Fax: 57-1-3380264 > >> Twitter @jcasasbuenaswww.colnodo.apc.org - Uso Estratégico de Internet > >> para el Desarrollo > >> Miembro de la Asociacion para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones > >> -APC-www.apc.org > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > *Fatima Cambronero* > > Abogada-Argentina > > Directora de Investigaciones > > *AGEIA DENSI Argentina* > > http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ > > > > *@facambronero* > > > > *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 17:36:07 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:36:07 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Public Launch of Global Internet Digest Message-ID: <922A57DAFAE6452AAEE269745C14452D@acer6e40e97492> This looks very useful. M -----Original Message----- From: mobileactive-discuss at googlegroups.com [mailto:mobileactive-discuss at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary Garriott Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 2:23 PM To: mobileactive-discuss at googlegroups.com Subject: [MobileActive Discuss] Public Launch of Global Internet Digest Internews is pleased to launch the Global Internet Digest, a weekly publication highlighting trends in digital and social media that intersect with freedom of expression, policy, privacy and censorship. The Digest features information about relevant news, research and online resources. It also includes an interactive calendar highlighting important events taking place around the world. The Digest is available on our website and via email. If you would like to subscribe, please sign up here. Visit the full Global Internet Digest on our web site. Best, Gary Garriott Director, ICT Programs Internews Network 1640 Rhode Island Ave NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA Tel. +1 202 833 5740, ext. 230 Email: ggarriott at internews.org Skype: ggarriott -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MobileActive-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to mobileactive-discuss at googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mobileactive-discuss+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mobileactive-discuss?hl=en MobileActive.org: A resource for activists using mobile technology worldwide -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pwilson at apnic.net Fri Oct 21 20:42:30 2011 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 10:42:30 +1000 (GMT+10:00) Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections Message-ID: <1176051360.11.1319244152954.JavaMail.javamailuser@localhost> Big congratulations to you Sala. As Jeremy can attest, you have more work ahead of you now! Paul Sent from Maildroid on Android -----Original Message----- From: Marilia Maciel To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:10 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections Congratulations, Sala! I am happy that we will have such an active woman as a co-coordinator! Jeremy, I would like to thank you very much for your dedication to IGC. You managed to strike a delicate balance between the "neutrality" position required to foster convergences and to achieve commons understandings, while also advancing your person contributions to the discussions, as an IGC member. This is something that should inspire all future IGC coordinators. Also, you left us with a rich legacy: a very useful online platform that we can use as focal point for IGC external communication as well as for our internal memory. It is up to us to take more advantage from it and use it wisely. Thanks you! Marília On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Congrats to Sala! > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 10/20/2011 09:18 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing > coordinator and returning officer. > > > > 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 > (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) > for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of > the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who > are encouraged to re-apply next year. > > > > 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already > voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not > given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > > > > In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their > eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail > of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a > couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" > option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership > for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in > the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was > unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my > experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the > above" option. > > > > In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in > my view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this > on the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to > coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such > an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on > all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of > candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid > misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year > that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do > you think? > > > > The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably > within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new > role. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Oct 22 01:02:18 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 17:02:18 +1200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <1176051360.11.1319244152954.JavaMail.javamailuser@localhost> References: <1176051360.11.1319244152954.JavaMail.javamailuser@localhost> Message-ID: Dear All, Whilst I have thanked each of you individually, I would also like to thank you again for your encouragement and support. We live in a time which is like no other as recorded in human history as the nature of crises around the world escalates. The recent flooding in Bangkok, the reported leak of the nuclear power plant in Karachi, the earthquake in the Northern part of New Zealand, the intense drought in Tuvalu, economic meltdown in Europe, food, water and energy crisis, climate change issues are some of the problems that the world has to face. Interwoven in this mix is the role that the internet plays in all of our ordinary day to day lives and the "governance challenges" that surround what is the most exciting invention since the printing press. I am in the process of having Jeremy and Izumi brief me and its is a transitionary phase as I find my footing and adapt into this new role of serving you alongside Izumi. I will no doubt be drawing from all the past co-coordinators at some point. The greatest strength is in the dynamic of Team and we all are a Team and diverse perspectives on an issue is a strength but finding our way to navigate through the challenges corporately will need all of our input and collective engagement. I am excited about the rich resources and expertise in all of you and look forward to working closely with you all to fulfill our mandate. We are in challenging times but we are a people who have the passion and belief that we can make a difference and together have the courage and strength to navigate through the challenges. As such, I would like to again thank Jeremy for his extraordinary work and commitment. I would also like to acknowledge the work of all past co-coordinators on this list who have also helped to pave the way and make our work as new co-coordinators an easier one. Again thank you* **vinaka vakalevu (my language), *谢谢, Спасибо, muchas gracias, ありがとうございます , 감사합니다, أفضل جواب, Dankie, Mauliate, धन्यवाद, Hvala , благодаря ви много , ᏩᏙ, Tusind Tak, Duizendmaal Dank, Tänan Tänan teid Tänan teid väga , Kiitoksia oikein paljon , Merci beaucoup , Danke schön ,Merci vilmal, Ευχαριστώ πολύ , ຂອບໃຈຫລາຍໆ, Grazzi ħafna, Obrigada, Fa'afetai, Хвала лепо , Asante sana, நன்றி, ధన్యవాదములు, Ngiyabonga *(Source: *http://www.omniglot.com/language/phrases/thankyou.htm ) P.S If I have misspelt your language, apologies blame it on the website I got it from but it conveys my gratitude. My very best regards to you all, Sala On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > Big congratulations to you Sala. > > As Jeremy can attest, you have more work ahead of you now! > > Paul > > Sent from Maildroid on Android > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marilia Maciel > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm > Sent: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:10 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC > coordinator elections > > Congratulations, Sala! I am happy that we will have such an active woman as > a co-coordinator! > > Jeremy, I would like to thank you very much for your dedication to IGC. You > managed to strike a delicate balance between the "neutrality" position > required to foster convergences and to achieve commons understandings, while > also advancing your person contributions to the discussions, as an IGC > member. This is something that should inspire all future IGC coordinators. > > Also, you left us with a rich legacy: a very useful online platform that we > can use as focal point for IGC external communication as well as for our > internal memory. It is up to us to take more advantage from it and use it > wisely. > > Thanks you! > Marília > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Congrats to Sala! >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/20/2011 09:18 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> > Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing >> coordinator and returning officer. >> > >> > 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, >> 26 (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) >> for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of >> the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who >> are encouraged to re-apply next year. >> > >> > 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had >> already voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they >> were not given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. >> > >> > In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their >> eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail >> of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a >> couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" >> option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership >> for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in >> the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was >> unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my >> experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the >> above" option. >> > >> > In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in >> my view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this >> on the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to >> coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such >> an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on >> all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of >> candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid >> misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year >> that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do >> you think? >> > >> > The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably >> within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new >> role. >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani at isd-rc.org Sat Oct 22 03:35:35 2011 From: kabani at isd-rc.org (Asif Kabani) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:35:35 +0500 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Greetings, Many congratulations to Sala for the new responsibility, I can also volunteer for Charter review. Thank you Jeremy for all your hard work over last two years. We appreciate your efforts With all the best Wishes Asif Kabani Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com On 20 October 2011 16:18, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing > coordinator and returning officer. > > 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 > (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) > for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of > the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who > are encouraged to re-apply next year. > > 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already > voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not > given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > > In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their > eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail > of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a > couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" > option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership > for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in > the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was > unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my > experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the > above" option. > > In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in my > view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this on > the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to > coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such > an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on > all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of > candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid > misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year > that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do > you think? > > The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably > within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new > role. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- Asif Kabani Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Oct 22 03:39:18 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:39:18 +1200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Asif I look forward to working with you. Kind Regards, Sala On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Asif Kabani wrote: > Dear Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > Greetings, > > Many congratulations to Sala for the new responsibility, I can also > volunteer for Charter review. > > Thank you Jeremy for all your hard work over last two years. We appreciate > your efforts > > With all the best Wishes > > > Asif Kabani > Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com > > On 20 October 2011 16:18, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing >> coordinator and returning officer. >> >> 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, 26 >> (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) >> for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of >> the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who >> are encouraged to re-apply next year. >> >> 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had already >> voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they were not >> given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. >> >> In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their >> eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail >> of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a >> couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" >> option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership >> for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in >> the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was >> unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my >> experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the >> above" option. >> >> In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in >> my view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this >> on the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to >> coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such >> an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on >> all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of >> candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid >> misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year >> that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do >> you think? >> >> The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably >> within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new >> role. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator* >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups >> that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and >> authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations >> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help >> protect and empower consumers everywhere. >> *www.consumersinternational.org* >> *Twitter @ConsumersInt * >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> > > > -- > Asif Kabani > Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com > > > > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Oct 22 08:57:36 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 10:57:36 -0200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: <1176051360.11.1319244152954.JavaMail.javamailuser@localhost> Message-ID: <4EA2BDC0.8060707@cafonso.ca> You missed "Obrigado"! (*) :) abraço fraterno --c.a. (*) "Thank you" in Portuguese and root of "arigato" in Japanese. On 10/22/2011 03:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Whilst I have thanked each of you individually, I would also like to thank > you again for your encouragement and support. We live in a time which is > like no other as recorded in human history as the nature of crises around > the world escalates. The recent flooding in Bangkok, the reported leak of > the nuclear power plant in Karachi, the earthquake in the Northern part of > New Zealand, the intense drought in Tuvalu, economic meltdown in Europe, > food, water and energy crisis, climate change issues are some of the > problems that the world has to face. > > Interwoven in this mix is the role that the internet plays in all of our > ordinary day to day lives and the "governance challenges" that surround what > is the most exciting invention since the printing press. I am in the process > of having Jeremy and Izumi brief me and its is a transitionary phase as I > find my footing and adapt into this new role of serving you alongside Izumi. > I will no doubt be drawing from all the past co-coordinators at some point. > > The greatest strength is in the dynamic of Team and we all are a Team and > diverse perspectives on an issue is a strength but finding our way to > navigate through the challenges corporately will need all of our input and > collective engagement. I am excited about the rich resources and expertise > in all of you and look forward to working closely with you all to fulfill > our mandate. We are in challenging times but we are a people who have the > passion and belief that we can make a difference and together have the > courage and strength to navigate through the challenges. > > As such, I would like to again thank Jeremy for his extraordinary work and > commitment. I would also like to acknowledge the work of all past > co-coordinators on this list who have also helped to pave the way and make > our work as new co-coordinators an easier one. > > Again thank you* **vinaka vakalevu (my language), *谢谢, Спасибо, muchas > gracias, ありがとうございます > , 감사합니다, أفضل جواب, Dankie, Mauliate, धन्यवाद, > Hvala > , благодаря ви много > , ᏩᏙ, Tusind Tak, Duizendmaal Dank, > Tänan > Tänan teid Tänan > teid väga , > Kiitoksia > oikein paljon , > Merci > beaucoup , Danke > schön ,Merci > vilmal, Ευχαριστώ πολύ > , ຂອບໃຈຫລາຍໆ, Grazzi ħafna, Obrigada, Fa'afetai, Хвала > лепо > , Asante sana, நன்றி, ధన్యవాదములు, > Ngiyabonga > *(Source: *http://www.omniglot.com/language/phrases/thankyou.htm ) > > P.S If I have misspelt your language, apologies blame it on the website I > got it from but it conveys my gratitude. > > > My very best regards to you all, > Sala > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > >> Big congratulations to you Sala. >> >> As Jeremy can attest, you have more work ahead of you now! >> >> Paul >> >> Sent from Maildroid on Android >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Marilia Maciel >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Cc: Jeremy Malcolm >> Sent: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:10 PM >> Subject: Re: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC >> coordinator elections >> >> Congratulations, Sala! I am happy that we will have such an active woman as >> a co-coordinator! >> >> Jeremy, I would like to thank you very much for your dedication to IGC. You >> managed to strike a delicate balance between the "neutrality" position >> required to foster convergences and to achieve commons understandings, while >> also advancing your person contributions to the discussions, as an IGC >> member. This is something that should inspire all future IGC coordinators. >> >> Also, you left us with a rich legacy: a very useful online platform that we >> can use as focal point for IGC external communication as well as for our >> internal memory. It is up to us to take more advantage from it and use it >> wisely. >> >> Thanks you! >> Marília >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Congrats to Sala! >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 10/20/2011 09:18 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing >>> coordinator and returning officer. >>>> >>>> 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, >>> 26 (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 (48.57%) >>> for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator of >>> the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, who >>> are encouraged to re-apply next year. >>>> >>>> 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had >>> already voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so they >>> were not given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. >>>> >>>> In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified their >>> eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not avail >>> of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed by a >>> couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" >>> option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines membership >>> for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted in >>> the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was >>> unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this by my >>> experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none of the >>> above" option. >>>> >>>> In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", in >>> my view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put this >>> on the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered to >>> coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that such >>> an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility on >>> all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a slate of >>> candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To avoid >>> misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this year >>> that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what do >>> you think? >>>> >>>> The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, probably >>> within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on her new >>> role. >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Oct 22 11:42:14 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:42:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again... Message-ID: "India favours change in Net number resource allocation: It wants countrywide allocation in Asia-Pacific region rather than to companies" http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article2485006.ece -- 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 pranesh at cis-india.org Sat Oct 22 11:49:02 2011 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:19:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA2E5EE.2040300@cis-india.org> There was a thread on India-GII discussing this. Folks on this list might find it of interest. The first post, by Suresh Ramasubramanian (who finds the Indian proposal a ghastly idea): http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/india-gii/2011-09/msg00121.html - Pranesh On 2011-10-22T21:12:14 IST, McTim wrote: > "India favours change in Net number resource allocation: It wants > countrywide allocation in Asia-Pacific region rather than to companies" > > http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article2485006.ece > -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 262 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Oct 22 12:32:02 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:32:02 +0300 Subject: [governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again... In-Reply-To: <4EA2E5EE.2040300@cis-india.org> References: <4EA2E5EE.2040300@cis-india.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > There was a thread on India-GII discussing this.  Folks on this list > might find it of interest. > > The first post, by Suresh Ramasubramanian (who finds the Indian proposal > a ghastly idea): That's because it is. > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/india-gii/2011-09/msg00121.html I will check it out, thanks! -- 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 hempalshrestha at gmail.com Sat Oct 22 12:43:49 2011 From: hempalshrestha at gmail.com (Hempal Shrestha) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:28:49 +0545 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <4EA2BDC0.8060707@cafonso.ca> References: <1176051360.11.1319244152954.JavaMail.javamailuser@localhost> <4EA2BDC0.8060707@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Congratulation Sala for this new responsibility. And a round of applause to Jeremy for his wonderful and active term as Co-coordinator! With best regards, Hempal Shrestha On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > You missed "Obrigado"! (*) > > :) > > abraço fraterno > > --c.a. > > (*) "Thank you" in Portuguese and root of "arigato" in Japanese. > > On 10/22/2011 03:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Whilst I have thanked each of you individually, I would also like to > thank > > you again for your encouragement and support. We live in a time which is > > like no other as recorded in human history as the nature of crises around > > the world escalates. The recent flooding in Bangkok, the reported leak of > > the nuclear power plant in Karachi, the earthquake in the Northern part > of > > New Zealand, the intense drought in Tuvalu, economic meltdown in Europe, > > food, water and energy crisis, climate change issues are some of the > > problems that the world has to face. > > > > Interwoven in this mix is the role that the internet plays in all of our > > ordinary day to day lives and the "governance challenges" that surround > what > > is the most exciting invention since the printing press. I am in the > process > > of having Jeremy and Izumi brief me and its is a transitionary phase as I > > find my footing and adapt into this new role of serving you alongside > Izumi. > > I will no doubt be drawing from all the past co-coordinators at some > point. > > > > The greatest strength is in the dynamic of Team and we all are a Team and > > diverse perspectives on an issue is a strength but finding our way to > > navigate through the challenges corporately will need all of our input > and > > collective engagement. I am excited about the rich resources and > expertise > > in all of you and look forward to working closely with you all to fulfill > > our mandate. We are in challenging times but we are a people who have the > > passion and belief that we can make a difference and together have the > > courage and strength to navigate through the challenges. > > > > As such, I would like to again thank Jeremy for his extraordinary work > and > > commitment. I would also like to acknowledge the work of all past > > co-coordinators on this list who have also helped to pave the way and > make > > our work as new co-coordinators an easier one. > > > > Again thank you* **vinaka vakalevu (my language), *谢谢, Спасибо, muchas > > gracias, ありがとうございます< > http://www.omniglot.com/soundfiles/thanks/thanks3_jp.mp3> > > , 감사합니다, أفضل جواب, Dankie, Mauliate, धन्यवाद, > > Hvala > > , благодаря ви много< > http://www.omniglot.com/soundfiles/thanks/thanksvm_bg.mp3> > > , ᏩᏙ, Tusind Tak, Duizendmaal Dank, > > Tänan > > Tänan teid > Tänan > > teid väga , > > Kiitoksia > > oikein paljon >, > > Merci > > beaucoup , > Danke > > schön ,Merci > > vilmal, Ευχαριστώ πολύ< > http://www.omniglot.com/soundfiles/greek/thanksvm_el.mp3> > > , ຂອບໃຈຫລາຍໆ, Grazzi ħafna, Obrigada, Fa'afetai, Хвала > > лепо > > , Asante sana, நன்றி, ధన్యవాదములు, > > Ngiyabonga > > *(Source: *http://www.omniglot.com/language/phrases/thankyou.htm ) > > > > P.S If I have misspelt your language, apologies blame it on the website I > > got it from but it conveys my gratitude. > > > > > > My very best regards to you all, > > Sala > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > >> Big congratulations to you Sala. > >> > >> As Jeremy can attest, you have more work ahead of you now! > >> > >> Paul > >> > >> Sent from Maildroid on Android > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Marilia Maciel > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Cc: Jeremy Malcolm > >> Sent: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:10 PM > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC > >> coordinator elections > >> > >> Congratulations, Sala! I am happy that we will have such an active woman > as > >> a co-coordinator! > >> > >> Jeremy, I would like to thank you very much for your dedication to IGC. > You > >> managed to strike a delicate balance between the "neutrality" position > >> required to foster convergences and to achieve commons understandings, > while > >> also advancing your person contributions to the discussions, as an IGC > >> member. This is something that should inspire all future IGC > coordinators. > >> > >> Also, you left us with a rich legacy: a very useful online platform that > we > >> can use as focal point for IGC external communication as well as for our > >> internal memory. It is up to us to take more advantage from it and use > it > >> wisely. > >> > >> Thanks you! > >> Marília > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: > >> > >>> Congrats to Sala! > >>> > >>> fraternal regards > >>> > >>> --c.a. > >>> > >>> On 10/20/2011 09:18 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>> Here is my report of the 2012 coordinator elections, as outgoing > >>> coordinator and returning officer. > >>>> > >>>> 99 valid votes were cast. Of these 14 (13.33%) were for Songitu Ekpe, > >>> 26 (24.76%) for Asif Kabani, 8 (7.62%) for Imran Ahmed Shah, and 51 > (48.57%) > >>> for Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. I declare Sala as the next coordinator > of > >>> the IGC. Congratulations! Many thanks also to the three runners-up, > who > >>> are encouraged to re-apply next year. > >>>> > >>>> 6 people began completing the ballot, but indicated that they had > >>> already voted in the election or did not respond to that question, so > they > >>> were not given the opportunity to vote and did not do so. > >>>> > >>>> In addition, there were 13 informal votes, from those who verified > their > >>> eligibility to vote and were given the opportunity to do so, did not > avail > >>> of that opportunity. This probably reflects the preference expressed > by a > >>> couple of people to me off-list for there to be a "none of the above" > >>> option. The charter is silent about this, but because it defines > membership > >>> for the purposes of charter amendment as only including those who voted > in > >>> the last election, I did not feel that a "none of the above" option was > >>> unambiguously constitutional. I was probably also influenced in this > by my > >>> experience of other electoral systems, which do not allow for a "none > of the > >>> above" option. > >>>> > >>>> In future if we want to allow people to vote for "none of the above", > in > >>> my view we should include this in the charter explicitly. I will put > this > >>> on the table during the charter review process that I have volunteered > to > >>> coordinate now that I have ended my term. My personal opinion is that > such > >>> an amendment would be a bad idea, because it lessens the responsibility > on > >>> all of us during the pre-election period to ensure that there is a > slate of > >>> candidates at least one of whom everyone would be happy with. (To > avoid > >>> misunderstanding, I am not imputing to those who voted informally this > year > >>> that they were unhappy with all of the candidates who stood.) But what > do > >>> you think? > >>>> > >>>> The list of voting members will be updated on our website soon, > probably > >>> within the next 48 hours. Izumi and I will also be briefing Sala on > her new > >>> role. > >>>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > >> FGV Direito Rio > >> > >> Center for Technology and Society > >> Getulio Vargas Foundation > >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Oct 22 14:39:37 2011 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 00:09:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again... In-Reply-To: References: <4EA2E5EE.2040300@cis-india.org> Message-ID: Hello MacTim, It is a very bad idea in its present form. It is difficult to see this as anything other than a move to control the Internet by an anachronistic proposal to nationalize the allocation of Internet address space. The idea of 'country-wide' and 'contiguous' allocation together with the implied idea of 'All IPv6 addresses ONLY through the National Internet Registry', would result in the unintended(?) outcome of reducing the Internet from being a free, open and universal medium to a Government controlled communication platform defined by national boundaries. It is likely that this is another proposal that is a reflection of wrong inputs to the policy makers. The ISPs do not require any form of Government help in the process of obtaining address blocks from the Regional Internet Registry. They need to be free, and continue with the status quo of uncomplicated processes in obtaining address blocks. With the relatively unlimited IPv6 space, the RIR processes could actually become a lot less complicated. Static IPv4 addresses have been expensive for the end-user in India, hope this will not be case with IPv6 address, on the present model of RIR - ISP relationship, free of Government mediation. With continued freedom, could we hope that the ISPs in India make it an automatic process for the end-users to obtain static IPv6 user blocks for connecting their computers and other devices, without bundling IP addresses with expensive bandwidth subscription plans? Sivasubramanian M India. On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:02 PM, McTim wrote: > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Pranesh Prakash > wrote: > > There was a thread on India-GII discussing this. Folks on this list > > might find it of interest. > > > > The first post, by Suresh Ramasubramanian (who finds the Indian proposal > > a ghastly idea): > > That's because it is. > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/india-gii/2011-09/msg00121.html > > I will check it out, thanks! > > > -- > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Oct 22 15:00:24 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 17:00:24 -0200 Subject: [governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again... In-Reply-To: References: <4EA2E5EE.2040300@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <4EA312C8.9040602@cafonso.ca> Wow, wow, wow... let us be less dramatic. There are at several national Internet registries in successful operation (Brazil, Japan, Mexico among others). For a full list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Internet_registry I know little about how this is done in the other countries, but having IP allocation done by a national registry in Brazil simply works. To begin with, it is done by CGI.br, which as you know is a pluralist commission in which its administrative and operational arm is a non-profit non-commercial organization called NIC.br. NIC.br also runs all technical facilities for LACNIC (LA&C regional IP registry). So the fact that India wants to run a NIR does not mean "government will control everything", or the sky will fall on people's heads. Let us see how exactly they plan to do it, hopefully building on the existing experiences. []s fraternos --c.a. On 10/22/2011 04:39 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Hello MacTim, > > > It is a very bad idea in its present form. It is difficult to see this as > anything other than a move to control the Internet by an anachronistic > proposal to nationalize the allocation of Internet address space. The idea > of 'country-wide' and 'contiguous' allocation together with the implied > idea of 'All IPv6 addresses ONLY through the National Internet > Registry', would > result in the unintended(?) outcome of reducing the Internet from being a > free, open and universal medium to a Government controlled communication > platform defined by national boundaries. > > It is likely that this is another proposal that is a reflection of wrong > inputs to the policy makers. The ISPs do not require any form of Government > help in the process of obtaining address blocks from the Regional Internet > Registry. They need to be free, and continue with the status quo of > uncomplicated processes in obtaining address blocks. With the relatively > unlimited IPv6 space, the RIR processes could actually become a lot less > complicated. > > Static IPv4 addresses have been expensive for the end-user in India, hope > this will not be case with IPv6 address, on the present model of RIR - ISP > relationship, free of Government mediation. With continued freedom, could we > hope that the ISPs in India make it an automatic process for the end-users > to obtain static IPv6 user blocks for connecting their computers and other > devices, without bundling IP addresses with expensive bandwidth subscription > plans? > > Sivasubramanian M > India. > > > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:02 PM, McTim wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Pranesh Prakash >> wrote: >>> There was a thread on India-GII discussing this. Folks on this list >>> might find it of interest. >>> >>> The first post, by Suresh Ramasubramanian (who finds the Indian proposal >>> a ghastly idea): >> >> That's because it is. >> >> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/india-gii/2011-09/msg00121.html >> >> I will check it out, thanks! >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Oct 22 15:47:43 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:47:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again... In-Reply-To: <4EA312C8.9040602@cafonso.ca> References: <4EA2E5EE.2040300@cis-india.org> <4EA312C8.9040602@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Jefe, Here is the text of the proposal in its current form: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100/prop-100-v002.txt I think you will agree that it is not the same thing as a NIR (altho that is in the works as well). You may have already read my opinion on this sort of plan here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/country_internet_registries_one_african_perspective/ Perhaps the most germane sentence is this one: "..once a nation has an telecommunications asset (think frequencies or licenses), as IPv6 blocks would surely be perceived, the tendency is to maximize revenue from that asset. " -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Wow, wow, wow... let us be less dramatic. There are at several national > Internet registries in successful operation (Brazil, Japan, Mexico among > others). For a full list: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Internet_registry > > I know little about how this is done in the other countries, but having > IP allocation done by a national registry in Brazil simply works. To > begin with, it is done by CGI.br, which as you know is a pluralist > commission in which its administrative and operational arm is a > non-profit non-commercial organization called NIC.br. > > NIC.br also runs all technical facilities for LACNIC (LA&C regional IP > registry). So the fact that India wants to run a NIR does not mean > "government will control everything", or the sky will fall on people's > heads. Let us see how exactly they plan to do it, hopefully building on > the existing experiences. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 10/22/2011 04:39 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> Hello MacTim, >> >> >> It is a very bad idea in its present form. It is difficult to see this as >> anything other than a move to control the Internet by an anachronistic >> proposal to nationalize the allocation of Internet address space. The idea >> of 'country-wide' and  'contiguous' allocation together with the implied >> idea of 'All IPv6 addresses ONLY through the National Internet >> Registry',  would >> result in the unintended(?) outcome of reducing the Internet from being a >> free, open and universal medium to a Government controlled communication >> platform defined by national boundaries. >> >> It is likely that this is another proposal that is a reflection of wrong >> inputs to the policy makers. The ISPs do not require any form of Government >> help in the process of obtaining address blocks from the Regional Internet >> Registry. They need to be free, and continue with the status quo of >> uncomplicated processes in obtaining address blocks. With the relatively >> unlimited IPv6 space, the RIR processes could actually become a lot less >> complicated. >> >> Static IPv4 addresses have been expensive for the end-user in India, hope >> this will not be case with IPv6 address, on the present model of RIR - ISP >> relationship, free of Government mediation. With continued freedom, could we >> hope that the ISPs in India make it an automatic process for the end-users >> to obtain static IPv6 user blocks for connecting their computers and other >> devices, without bundling IP addresses with expensive bandwidth subscription >> plans? >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> India. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:02 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Pranesh Prakash >>> wrote: >>>> There was a thread on India-GII discussing this.  Folks on this list >>>> might find it of interest. >>>> >>>> The first post, by Suresh Ramasubramanian (who finds the Indian proposal >>>> a ghastly idea): >>> >>> That's because it is. >>> >>> >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/india-gii/2011-09/msg00121.html >>> >>> I will check it out, thanks! >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 ca at cafonso.ca Sat Oct 22 20:11:19 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:11:19 -0200 Subject: [governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again... In-Reply-To: References: <4EA2E5EE.2040300@cis-india.org> <4EA312C8.9040602@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4EA35BA7.5050802@cafonso.ca> Hmmmm.... get it. Thx. --c.a. On 10/22/2011 05:47 PM, McTim wrote: > Jefe, > > Here is the text of the proposal in its current form: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100/prop-100-v002.txt > > I think you will agree that it is not the same thing as a NIR (altho > that is in the works as well). > > You may have already read my opinion on this sort of plan here: > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/country_internet_registries_one_african_perspective/ > > Perhaps the most germane sentence is this one: "..once a nation has > an telecommunications asset (think frequencies or licenses), as IPv6 > blocks would surely be perceived, the tendency is to maximize revenue > from that asset. " > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Sun Oct 23 00:55:25 2011 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:25:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 Message-ID: <4EA39E3D.8040202@cis-india.org> The applicants for the IANA contract have to be companies based in the USA. From .Nxt : http://goo.gl/odI4k # US government puts IANA contract out for open bidding # by Kieren McCarthy | 21 Oct 2011 | The United States government will put out the IANA functions contract for competitive bidding at the start of next month. A notice announcing the bid was [posted earlier today][] on the FedBizOpps website, a database of federal government contracting opportunities that contains roughly 50 percent of US government procurements projects. The pre-solicitation notice points to a 4 November publication date for the official Request for Proposals, and an expected closing date one month later. The contract will run for seven years, with an initial three-year base period followed by two, two-year optional extension periods. But if you were thinking of applying, you may want to note that the contract comes with precisely $0 in federal funds. In other words you will be running the systems for nothing. According to ICANN, it spent $5.6 million running IANA last year, and has estimated that will increase to $6.5 million next year. Of course were you to win the contract, it would be in the interests of Internet registries and Internet protocol organizations worldwide to fund the effective management of the contract. But that would certainly be something any business manager would need to consider. On top of that, the IANA contract, albeit a highly technical function, comes with significant political and legal implications, demonstrated earlier this month when ICANN, under the name of IANA, assumed the running of the global timezone database after the previous owner was threatened with a lawsuit. Then there is the fact that the holder of the IANA contract could, in theory at least, move an entire country’s Internet to different look-up servers - something that has caused years of international intrigue. Some countries have very publicly railed against the fact that a US company operating under a US government contract is nominally in charge of whether their national top-level domain is available on the Internet. Since the contract specifies that the contract holder be a company based in the United States, that issue is not likely to disappear any time soon. ## Review process ## The IANA contract covers a range of critical Internet functions, most notably managing the domain name system address book (the root zone file), and has been awarded to ICANN since February 2000. Earlier this year, ICANN officially requested that the US government use the end of the current contract (30 September) to adjust the contract terms to effectively make it a cooperative agreement between it and the government. That request was rejected by the National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA) which said only Congress had the power to change the make-up of the contract. Then, in an unusual move that Assistant Commerce Secretary Larry Strickling publicly stated was in order to force ICANN to live up to its accountability and transparency obligations, the US government stated that it was going to open up the contract. First it announced through a formal [Notice of Inquiry][] in February that it was going to review the IANA contract, providing a series of questions that it asked people to respond to. Then, it produced a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) inside a “Further Notice of Inquiry” (FNOI) which it [published in June][], and again asked for public feedback. In order to have time to consider all the comments, the NTIA provided a temporary extension to ICANN’s contract until 31 March 2012. The FNOI received no less than 46 responses (which we have summarized and broken out both [by topic][] and [by sender][]). Despite all these steps, and a number of clear public statements by Strickling, attendees to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Nairobi last month were still surprised when the NTIA made clear its intent was to launch an open bidding process for the contract. ## Breakdown of trust ## While it refuses to acknowledge the fact, ICANN brought the open bidding of an IANA contract that is crucial to its authority on itself. When the US government agreed to much greater autonomy for the organization in September 2009, moving from a “Joint Project Agreement” to an “Affirmation of Commitments”, the key element of the new agreement was an independent review into ICANN’s accountability and transparency. On the review team was no less than NTIA Secretary Strickling. Unfortunately, ICANN demonstrated the very behavior that had sparked calls for the review in the first place, interfering with the review at both the staff and Board level, leading to several public and private arguments between the review team and ICANN’s CEO and Chairman. The final report included an entire appendix outlining ICANN’s failure of objectivity and an “attitude of inordinate defensiveness and distrust”. That disaster was swiftly followed by a collapse in relations between the ICANN Board and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) over both the dot-xxx top-level domain and the rules for new Internet extensions. A series of increasingly difficult public meetings, which at times verged on the surreal, led to the ICANN Board approving the dot-xxx extension despite a very strongly worded statement against it by governments, and the “approval” of the Applicant Guidebook after begrudging acceptance of a large number of suggested changes put forward by the GAC. It was then, at a time when relations between the US government and ICANN had never been lower, that both the Chairman and CEO used public speeches to request that the US government to hand over to it the one contract that gives the NTIA some measure of influence over the organization. To nobody’s surprise but ICANN, the NTIA said no. ## Delusional ## The strong likelihood is that ICANN will retain the IANA contract given its experience with running the technical functions, the cost of running the contract, and the political implications in changing ownership. However the NTIA will be hoping that by putting the [contract][posted earlier today] out to an open bid that it will shake ICANN’s almost-delusional belief that it has a god-given right to the contract. One thing that the public comment period the NTIA held on the contract made clear was that the Internet community was not that impressed with the way ICANN actually ran the IANA contract. It was lacking in customer service, provided poor explanations, was lacking in clear and verifiable policies, and it had not improved its services in years, nor come good on promises for improvements. It is difficult to see another organization step in and run the IANA contract, and many will not favor a shift due to the uncertainty it may cause. But in the bigger scheme of things, it may be good for both ICANN and the Internet if the organization was given a serious run for its money during the open bidding, and so forced to justify its continued ownership of a crucial Internet function. [posted earlier today]: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/21/iana-contract-notice-fedopsbiz [Notice of Inquiry]: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/02/25/usg-iana-noi [published in June]: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/06/10/ntia-fnoi-iana [by topic]: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/15/iana-fnoi-summary-responses [by sender]: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/15/iana-fnoi-summary-by-sender -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 262 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Sun Oct 23 01:13:02 2011 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:13:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <4EA39E3D.8040202@cis-india.org> References: <4EA39E3D.8040202@cis-india.org> Message-ID: I wonder if this could be seen as more of a message by the US government to CS ("Don't forget who's actually in charge!") than as a message from the US gov. to ICANN... Best, Ivar On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 00:55, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > The applicants for the IANA contract have to be companies based in the USA. > > From .Nxt : http://goo.gl/odI4k > > # US government puts IANA contract out for open bidding # > by Kieren McCarthy | 21 Oct 2011 | > The United States government will put out the IANA functions contract > for competitive bidding at the start of next month. > > A notice announcing the bid was [posted earlier today][] on the > FedBizOpps website, a database of federal government contracting > opportunities that contains roughly 50 percent of US government > procurements projects. > > The pre-solicitation notice points to a 4 November publication date for > the official Request for Proposals, and an expected closing date one > month later. The contract will run for seven years, with an initial > three-year base period followed by two, two-year optional extension > periods. > > But if you were thinking of applying, you may want to note that the > contract comes with precisely $0 in federal funds. In other words you > will be running the systems for nothing. According to ICANN, it spent > $5.6 million running IANA last year, and has estimated that will > increase to $6.5 million next year. > > Of course were you to win the contract, it would be in the interests of > Internet registries and Internet protocol organizations worldwide to > fund the effective management of the contract. But that would certainly > be something any business manager would need to consider. > > On top of that, the IANA contract, albeit a highly technical function, > comes with significant political and legal implications, demonstrated > earlier this month when ICANN, under the name of IANA, assumed the > running of the global timezone database after the previous owner was > threatened with a lawsuit. > > Then there is the fact that the holder of the IANA contract could, in > theory at least, move an entire country’s Internet to different look-up > servers - something that has caused years of international intrigue. > Some countries have very publicly railed against the fact that a US > company operating under a US government contract is nominally in charge > of whether their national top-level domain is available on the Internet. > > Since the contract specifies that the contract holder be a company based > in the United States, that issue is not likely to disappear any time soon. > > ## Review process ## > > The IANA contract covers a range of critical Internet functions, most > notably managing the domain name system address book (the root zone > file), and has been awarded to ICANN since February 2000. > > Earlier this year, ICANN officially requested that the US government use > the end of the current contract (30 September) to adjust the contract > terms to effectively make it a cooperative agreement between it and the > government. That request was rejected by the National Telecommunication > and Information Administration (NTIA) which said only Congress had the > power to change the make-up of the contract. > > Then, in an unusual move that Assistant Commerce Secretary Larry > Strickling publicly stated was in order to force ICANN to live up to its > accountability and transparency obligations, the US government stated > that it was going to open up the contract. > > First it announced through a formal [Notice of Inquiry][] in February > that it was going to review the IANA contract, providing a series of > questions that it asked people to respond to. Then, it produced a draft > Request for Proposals (RFP) inside a “Further Notice of Inquiry” (FNOI) > which it [published in June][], and again asked for public feedback. In > order to have time to consider all the comments, the NTIA provided a > temporary extension to ICANN’s contract until 31 March 2012. > > The FNOI received no less than 46 responses (which we have summarized > and broken out both [by topic][] and [by sender][]). > > Despite all these steps, and a number of clear public statements by > Strickling, attendees to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Nairobi > last month were still surprised when the NTIA made clear its intent was > to launch an open bidding process for the contract. > > ## Breakdown of trust ## > > While it refuses to acknowledge the fact, ICANN brought the open bidding > of an IANA contract that is crucial to its authority on itself. > > When the US government agreed to much greater autonomy for the > organization in September 2009, moving from a “Joint Project Agreement” > to an “Affirmation of Commitments”, the key element of the new agreement > was an independent review into ICANN’s accountability and transparency. > On the review team was no less than NTIA Secretary Strickling. > > Unfortunately, ICANN demonstrated the very behavior that had sparked > calls for the review in the first place, interfering with the review at > both the staff and Board level, leading to several public and private > arguments between the review team and ICANN’s CEO and Chairman. The > final report included an entire appendix outlining ICANN’s failure of > objectivity and an “attitude of inordinate defensiveness and distrust”. > > That disaster was swiftly followed by a collapse in relations between > the ICANN Board and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) over both > the dot-xxx top-level domain and the rules for new Internet extensions. > > A series of increasingly difficult public meetings, which at times > verged on the surreal, led to the ICANN Board approving the dot-xxx > extension despite a very strongly worded statement against it by > governments, and the “approval” of the Applicant Guidebook after > begrudging acceptance of a large number of suggested changes put forward > by the GAC. > > It was then, at a time when relations between the US government and > ICANN had never been lower, that both the Chairman and CEO used public > speeches to request that the US government to hand over to it the one > contract that gives the NTIA some measure of influence over the > organization. To nobody’s surprise but ICANN, the NTIA said no. > > ## Delusional ## > > The strong likelihood is that ICANN will retain the IANA contract given > its experience with running the technical functions, the cost of running > the contract, and the political implications in changing ownership. > > However the NTIA will be hoping that by putting the [contract][posted > earlier today] out to an open bid that it will shake ICANN’s > almost-delusional belief that it has a god-given right to the contract. > > One thing that the public comment period the NTIA held on the contract > made clear was that the Internet community was not that impressed with > the way ICANN actually ran the IANA contract. It was lacking in customer > service, provided poor explanations, was lacking in clear and verifiable > policies, and it had not improved its services in years, nor come good > on promises for improvements. > > It is difficult to see another organization step in and run the IANA > contract, and many will not favor a shift due to the uncertainty it may > cause. But in the bigger scheme of things, it may be good for both ICANN > and the Internet if the organization was given a serious run for its > money during the open bidding, and so forced to justify its continued > ownership of a crucial Internet function. > > [posted earlier today]: > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/21/iana-contract-notice-fedopsbiz > [Notice of Inquiry]: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/02/25/usg-iana-noi > [published in June]: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/06/10/ntia-fnoi-iana > [by topic]: > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/15/iana-fnoi-summary-responses > [by sender]: > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/15/iana-fnoi-summary-by-sender > > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Programme Manager > Centre for Internet and Society > W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Sun Oct 23 05:29:01 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 09:29:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again... In-Reply-To: <4EA312C8.9040602@cafonso.ca> References: <4EA2E5EE.2040300@cis-india.org> <4EA312C8.9040602@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2011, at 19:00 , Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Wow, wow, wow... let us be less dramatic. There are at several national > Internet registries in successful operation (Brazil, Japan, Mexico among > others). For a full list: > We need not forget, that not all governments are the same. Further, even a "good" government can go "bad". Most importantly, Governments change. When that happens, there are new rules. That is not the proper environment for Internet development and it's avoidance so far has provided we have the developed Internet of today. In Europe there used to exist "national" internet registries, named at the time "Last Resort registries". With the development of knowledge etc there were abandoned. In many countries, a local ISP business will rather go to a "neutral" central registry, than to a "competitor" local registry. This all is a complicated matter, but the current system works and is stable. Daniel____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Oct 23 05:56:11 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 07:56:11 -0200 Subject: [governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again... In-Reply-To: References: <4EA2E5EE.2040300@cis-india.org> <4EA312C8.9040602@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4EA3E4BB.1090206@cafonso.ca> On 10/23/2011 07:29 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: [...] > In Europe there used to exist "national" internet registries, named > at the time "Last Resort registries". With the development of > knowledge etc there were abandoned. In many countries, a local ISP > business will rather go to a "neutral" central registry, than to a > "competitor" local registry. This all is a complicated matter, but > the current system works and is stable. I agree, the current system in which you have basically two options (NIR or otherwise) is stable in both cases. frt rgds --c.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 isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Oct 23 06:23:35 2011 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:53:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again... In-Reply-To: <4EA3E4BB.1090206@cafonso.ca> References: <4EA2E5EE.2040300@cis-india.org> <4EA312C8.9040602@cafonso.ca> <4EA3E4BB.1090206@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: This proposal came up for discussions in the APNIC list during Dec 2009. I sent comments from Internet Society India Chennai on December 1, 2009 to the Executive Secretary of APNIC. (The PDF file as sent is also attached) : Comments on the application from the National Internet Exchange of India to form a NIR in India *Date*: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:17:58 +0530 http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2009/12/msg00001.html The concept of National Internet Registries (as against the Regional registries such as APNIC) has the potential danger of paving the way for a geographically – or nationally – fragmented Internet. While the RIR have already decided to encourage NIR's, ISOC India Chennai wishes to place on record a general comment common to all NIR's proposed under the five RIR's: It is theoretically possible for any National Government to 'separate' the Internet within its borders by implementing certain policies and practices peculiar to its English and IDN ccTLD domain space in combination with specific policies and practices for the IP address space under its NIR. This possibility makes it all the more important for the RIR's to ensure that the local policies of the NIRs do not conflict in any way with regional or global policies. On the application from the National Internet Exchange of India to form a NIR in India, ISOC India Chennai comments as follows: The application to form the NIR in India is filed by the National Internet Exchange of India (Nixi) together with the Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI) as a consortium application. The arrangement proposed by the ISPAI is that Nixi would handle policy and financial aspects of the NIR while the “full responsibility for execution” will rest with the ISPAI. Clause 3.2..2 of the NIR criteria states “NIR must be ... neutral with respect to the Internet industry ... NIRs should not provide ISP services ... ...NIRs should not have any special corporate or contractual relationship with any ISP within their service region.” Nixi was formed by the Department of Information Technology in association with the Internet Service Providers Association of India. At least 34 Internet Service Providers (ISPs), including major Class A ISPs are part of Nixi as peering ISPs. The majority of Directors of Nixi are elected by member ISPs. It would not be entirely correct to assume that Nixi does not have (an implicit) 'contractual relationship with the ISPs'. By extension, the NIR proposed as a body jointly promoted by Nixi and ISPAI may not be free of implied and unspoken contractual relationship with the ISPs. While ISOC India Chennai observes that the Internet Service Providers of India have policies and practices that are largely balanced, it objects – in principle – to the totality of control that the NIR would offer to the ISPs. In India in particular, the IP address space policies of the ISPs have favored large bandwidth users with high revenue bandwidth plans. Static IP addresses were allotted to users on bandwidth plans in excess of US $ 300 – 500 per month, while the average user was not assigned a static IP addresses. While APNIC allots IP address blocks to ISPs at a negligible cost, the ISPs in India have indirectly gained substantial revenues by controlling IP address allocation to users. If the ISPAI or an ISPAI-dominant body is conceded the role of NIR, IP address space may be managed in such a way that even the abundant Ipv6 addresses offer indirect revenues to the ISPs. This is part of the rationale behind our hesitation to unconditionally support this application. In order to ensure that the proposed application for the NIR in India meets the provisions of Clause 3.2.2 and other clauses, APNIC may suggest that – NIXI should confirm that the proposed NIR would adhere to Internet Core values – NIXI should assure that its operational procedures of the proposed NIR will be non-discriminatory in any way (race, gender, religion, political ideology, opinion) – NIXI should make sure that the proposed NIR involves equal and meaningful participation, not only by the Indian ISP community, but also by a true representation of the Internet User communities. NIXI should confirm that it intends to function following a multi-stakeholder participatory model. In the process Nixi should gain greater independence from the Government - NIXI should continue to support the free choice of ISPs to receive services from the NIR or APNIC and ensure that there are no direct or indirect pressures on any ISP in India to confine its options to address space from the NIR. This free choice is of paramount importance for further development of Internet in India While ISOC India Chennai has faith in Nixi as a progressive institution and feels that a Nixi initiative to form an NIR as broadly agreeable, it wishes to recommend that APNIC does not rush into a decision to approve the proposal for the NIR and commissions a study regarding the restriction of allocation of IP addresses in India. APNIC may have to wait until there is clear evidence that all ISPs and all stakeholders have been duly consulted and informed on the proposal to establish the NIR. The most significant ISPs in India are primarily telephone companies that have transitioned from the telecom sector. These telco/ISPs are part of large corporate groups that have caused considerable national economic development in the process of their own business growth; Their size and importance places them in a position to wield considerable influence over Internet policies, which makes it imperative to ensure that these corporations as ISPs do not gain an even larger position in the Internet arena that would be difficult to balance. ----------------------------------------- end of comments in the APNIC list on Dec 1, 2009 (as posted in the form of the PDF as attached ) Sivasubramanian M http://isocindiachennai.org On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > On 10/23/2011 07:29 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > [...] > > In Europe there used to exist "national" internet registries, named > > at the time "Last Resort registries". With the development of > > knowledge etc there were abandoned. In many countries, a local ISP > > business will rather go to a "neutral" central registry, than to a > > "competitor" local registry. This all is a complicated matter, but > > the current system works and is stable. > > I agree, the current system in which you have basically two options (NIR > or otherwise) is stable in both cases. > > frt rgds > > --c.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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: comments on India's proposal for a Natioanl Internet Registry by isoc india chennai on the apnic list dec 1 2009.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 36447 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Sun Oct 23 07:33:08 2011 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:33:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <4EA39E3D.8040202@cis-india.org> References: <4EA39E3D.8040202@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <20111023113308.GA13159@sources.org> > Since the contract specifies that the contract holder be a company > based in the United States, That's much worse: > The Contractor shall perform the primary IANA functions of the > Contract in the United States and possess and maintain, throughout > the performance of this Contract, a physical address within the > United States. The Contractor must be able to demonstrate that all > primary operations and systems will remain within the Unites States > (including the District of Columbia). The Government reserves the > right to inspect the premises, systems, and processes of all > security and operational components used for the performance of all > Contract requirements and obligations. So, the future IANA will not even be able to, like ICANN, _pretend_ it is a bit internationalized. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From raquelgatto at uol.com.br Sun Oct 23 09:35:27 2011 From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 11:35:27 -0200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the results of the 2012 IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: <1176051360.11.1319244152954.JavaMail.javamailuser@localhost> <4EA2BDC0.8060707@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4ea4181f2c129_6840b52492c14d@a4-weasel18.tmail> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Sun Oct 23 11:03:08 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:03:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <20111023113308.GA13159@sources.org> References: <4EA39E3D.8040202@cis-india.org> <20111023113308.GA13159@sources.org> Message-ID: On Oct 23, 2011, at 11:33 , Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > That's much worse: > >> The Contractor shall perform the primary IANA functions of the >> Contract in the United States and possess and maintain, throughout >> the performance of this Contract, a physical address within the >> United States. The Contractor must be able to demonstrate that all >> primary operations and systems will remain within the Unites States >> (including the District of Columbia). The Government reserves the >> right to inspect the premises, systems, and processes of all >> security and operational components used for the performance of all >> Contract requirements and obligations. > > So, the future IANA will not even be able to, like ICANN, _pretend_ it > is a bit internationalized. It does not need to pretend such things. After all this is a contract the USG will sign with whomever they chose and I guess by going trough their "standard" procurement procedures, they simply have no other choice. What worries me is the reference to District of Columbia… perhaps that wording is required in order for certain US law to apply? Daniel____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Oct 23 11:16:14 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:16:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: <4EA39E3D.8040202@cis-india.org> <20111023113308.GA13159@sources.org> Message-ID: In message , at 15:03:08 on Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >What worries me is the reference to District of Columbia… perhaps that >wording is required in order for certain US law to apply? DC isn't a separate sovereign state (in the way that the Vatican is) but neither is it one of the normal 50 "United" States. But for the purposes of a contract such as this it's simplest to regard it as equivalent to an additional State. In other words, if you are based there, then it's perfectly "ok", you might as well be in Virginia. -- 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 nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 11:58:22 2011 From: nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com (NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:58:22 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] ICANN 42 in Dakar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1319385502.9798.YahooMailNeo@web29518.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I am here now.   Pastor Peters Osawaru OMORAGBON, * Executive President/CEO-Nurses Across the Borders Inc.(USA & NIGERIA)         President, Diaspora Nurses Association of Nigeria- DNAN       * Fellow-Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers- ICANN * Fellow-Open Society Institute, Budapest * Designated Focal Person-United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change- UNFCCC in Nigeria * Board Member, Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the UN- CONGO * Member, Steering Committee, Regional Committee for Africa-Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the UN- CONGO * Tel: +441438729726, +234-8052658024, * Email: diasporanursesa at yahoo.com, petersomoragbon2 at yahoo.co.uk, * www.nursesacrosstheborders.org ________________________________ From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011, 21:45 Subject: [governance] ICANN 42 in Dakar Dear All, If there are people on this list who will be in Dakar for the ICANN 42 or who reside in Senegal, it would be great to share a cup of tea with you. I will be in Dakar on the 21st October, 2011. Best Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851   ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sun Oct 23 12:32:14 2011 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:32:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: <4EA39E3D.8040202@cis-india.org> <20111023113308.GA13159@sources.org> Message-ID: What international agreement allows the USG to make unilateral decisions on the management of a common good ? - - - On Oct 23, 2011, at 11:33 , Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > > > > That's much worse: > > > >> The Contractor shall perform the primary IANA functions of the > >> Contract in the United States and possess and maintain, throughout > >> the performance of this Contract, a physical address within the > >> United States. The Contractor must be able to demonstrate that all > >> primary operations and systems will remain within the Unites States > >> (including the District of Columbia). The Government reserves the > >> right to inspect the premises, systems, and processes of all > >> security and operational components used for the performance of all > >> Contract requirements and obligations. > > > > So, the future IANA will not even be able to, like ICANN, _pretend_ it > > is a bit internationalized. > - - - > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 17:03, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > It does not need to pretend such things. After all this is a contract the > USG will sign with whomever they chose and I guess by going trough their > "standard" procurement procedures, they simply have no other choice. > > What worries me is the reference to District of Columbia… perhaps that > wording is required in order for certain US law to apply? > > Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Oct 23 15:29:47 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:29:47 +1100 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: And why on earth does ICANN or anyone else like the root zone operators have to follow their instructions anyway? Surely this can just become a function of ICANN and forget about the silly authorisation from USG. It serves no useful purpose now that ICANN is established as a representative structure involving all stakeholders. Anachronistic and unneccessary. ICANN might be well served by not bothering to apply. Ian Peter From: "Louis Pouzin (well)" Reply-To: , "Louis Pouzin (well)" Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:32:14 +0200 To: Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 What international agreement allows the USG to make unilateral decisions on the management of a common good ? - - - > On Oct 23, 2011, at 11:33 , Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > >> > >> > That's much worse: >> > >>> >> The Contractor shall perform the primary IANA functions of the >>> >> Contract in the United States and possess and maintain, throughout >>> >> the performance of this Contract, a physical address within the >>> >> United States. The Contractor must be able to demonstrate that all >>> >> primary operations and systems will remain within the Unites States >>> >> (including the District of Columbia). The Government reserves the >>> >> right to inspect the premises, systems, and processes of all >>> >> security and operational components used for the performance of all >>> >> Contract requirements and obligations. >> > >> > So, the future IANA will not even be able to, like ICANN, _pretend_ it >> > is a bit internationalized. - - - > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 17:03, Daniel Kalchev wrote:   > It does not need to pretend such things. After all this is a contract the USG > will sign with whomever they chose and I guess by going trough their > "standard" procurement procedures, they simply have no other choice. > > What worries me is the reference to District of ColumbiaŠ perhaps that wording > is required in order for certain US law to apply? > > Daniel   ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Sun Oct 23 17:26:24 2011 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 22:26:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Book: Freedom of Connection Freedom of Expression: The Changing Legal and Regulatory Ecology Shaping the Internet Message-ID: http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Connection-Expression-Changing-Regulatory/dp/9231041886/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319404985&sr=8-1 -- _________________________ Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant _______________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Oct 23 19:14:38 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:14:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: <4EA39E3D.8040202@cis-india.org> <20111023113308.GA13159@sources.org> , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B033316@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> But by implication...not so ok to be based in say Guam, or U.S. Virgin Islands. Anyway, my 2 cents: ICANN need not be afraid, very afraid - but yeah stripping IANA function out of ICANN could indeed happen. That's what putting something out for competitive bid means. Since under U.S law, credible bids MUST be considered, and further if credible bids are rejected, there have to be clearly explained reasons given why one bid was selected as superior. But that scenario only unfolds IF: 1) a credible alternate bid is put forward, AND 2) ICANN continues to fail to read transparency tea leaves, when it submits a presumably humble, efficient/technocratic (and fully transparent) bid to retain IANA function. Then, even if losing bidders sue, as often happens (less likely for zero $ contracts admittedly than $billion + procurements) Asst Secretary is not that annoyed at being taken to court for awarding a zero $ contract to the incumbent. Even if rest of world....still is. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:16 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In message , at 15:03:08 on Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >What worries me is the reference to District of Columbia… perhaps that >wording is required in order for certain US law to apply? DC isn't a separate sovereign state (in the way that the Vatican is) but neither is it one of the normal 50 "United" States. But for the purposes of a contract such as this it's simplest to regard it as equivalent to an additional State. In other words, if you are based there, then it's perfectly "ok", you might as well be in Virginia. -- 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 Mon Oct 24 02:54:23 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:24:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4EA50B9F.802@itforchange.net> On Friday 21 October 2011 05:02 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Too much to hope for? > > Bill > > If intergovernmental control could be taken off the table, at least > outside the ITU, that might help to make "IGF improvements" a less > divisive topic. One important point about the Rio recs is that it was the first time the IBSA countries moved from the demand for 'an existing or a new UN based agency' (as called for in Dec 2010 UNDESA consultation and July 2011 ECOSOC meeting) to calling for a 'new agency' . IBSA thus did show the eagerness to look at new institutional options more in keeping with the present situation than sticking to ITU. It is unfortunate that all critics failed to take notice of this important devleopment, which I must say is not easy to sustain unless the few devleoping countries that are ready to stick their neck out for such new possibilities get the right kind of support. There is every likelihood that we will slip into the default ITU position. It is but obvious that some place has to look into the innumerable Internet related global public policy issues that keep cropping up. And, sorry, it cant be OECD for the developing countries, whether the global civil society engaged in the IG arena is sensitive to this basic democratic proposition or not. In this regard I also refer to Bill's earlier email of last Fridat whereby the ITU hold over taking charge of the global Internet related policy space is getting strengthened. I also noticed in the presentation of ITU head to the IGF that ITU has bene creeping into areas beyond hard infrastructure or even security to content related issues, Such a creeping acquisition will continue unless we are able to come up with credible alternative global institutional option. I can assure you all people of best intentions that are being completely unsympathetic to IBSA countries' effort to move things along towards a more democratic and public interest oriented global IG regime that it wont hold water just to tell IBSA or other developing countries to shut up, and bear with powerful countries and global corporates unilaterally setting the new global techno-social order. If Rio recs has problems - and I think it has significant issues (which I will discuss separately) - let us say so. Say this is wrong,and instead we should do this. Say that we are dissatisfied with existing IG regime, and this is the manner in which we think it can be made more democratic and participative. This is how the civil society can have an active and strong voice and influence, and that, this is the model of global Internet related policy development that we suggest. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 24 03:06:09 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:36:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4EA50E61.9030909@itforchange.net> On Friday 21 October 2011 05:02 PM, William Drake wrote: > > This is a barrier I wish we could somehow overcome. As long > as developing country intergovernmental efforts on EC and in the ITU > appear to have intergovernmental control as their end game and the IGF > is getting tactically linked to this as you noted, one imagines the > TC, business, and a lot of governments will remain wedded to the fear > that an IGF that does more than meet and chat once a year would > necessarily get leveraged to advance that agenda. And CS proponents > of more intensive, structured and "outcome" oriented dialogues will > remain isolated and frustrated. If intergovernmental control could be > taken off the table, at least outside the ITU, that might help to make > "IGF improvements" a less divisive topic. So again, if indeed IBSA > has shifted, it'd be great for them to say so. And for more > governments beyond Brazil and a distinct minority of other G77 to > demonstrate that they take the IGF process seriously and will engage > even if it doesn't offer a path to intergovernmental control. This is another myth that a strong IGF will get used to pave the path to inter-governmental control, and such myths appear very easily when the agenda is to discredit developing countries. I will like to know how this is possible to be done. The IGF is inherently multistakeholder. And it is open, which means that it will always be crowded by those with better means, as we have seen it to be. With an IGF full of big delegations from developed counties, and so many other stakeholders, who, till now, have largely played as good allies of the developed countries, pray, how can a handful of developing countries pull out an inter-governmental rabbit out of the hat at the IGF... This is the height of convenient imagination. It one just wants to run with the status quo, one can come with a thousand self serving explanations. Which new institutional model does not have one or other possible risk? As Marilia suggests, with the meeting of WG on IGF improvements coming up, it is time for the civil society to stand up and say if they are for a stronger and more purposive IGF or not. My submission is that anyone not ready to make the necessary changes in the IGF status quo is the one really against multi-stakeholder policy making. And in this regard, the clearest proposals on the table for strong and specific changes to the IGF for strengthening it as a multistakeholder policy influencing body (other than the distracting humdrum kind of proposals, like 'lets improve the IGF website') are by IBSA countries (India proposal supported by others). In fact, in forwarding such bold proposals for developing very significant channels of rather authoritative multistakeholder influence on global Internet related policy making through an IGF with some teeth, it is the IBSA countries that are going out on one limb, beyond their traditional positions whereby they have been (too) cautious of the kind of geo-political imbalance that can be caused by an overwhelming presence of 'other stakeholders', that in their views have largely weighed in on the side of developed countries, especially in the IG arena. Parminder > > Too much to hope for? > > Bill > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 24 03:12:04 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:42:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again... In-Reply-To: References: <4EA2E5EE.2040300@cis-india.org> <4EA312C8.9040602@cafonso.ca> <4EA3E4BB.1090206@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4EA50FC4.5080801@itforchange.net> Dear Siva IT for Change supports the ISOC Chennai position in the below regard. If an NIR has to be formed we see no reason for it to have exclusive rights to addresses for the country. Secondly, as your letter says, it is very important to divest any potential NIR management from ISPs heaviness. I think you should specifically propose the Brazilian multistakeholder model of managing the NIR as what India should adopt. parminder On Sunday 23 October 2011 03:53 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > This proposal came up for discussions in the APNIC list during Dec > 2009. I sent comments from Internet Society India Chennai on December > 1, 2009 to the Executive Secretary of APNIC. (The PDF file as sent is > also attached) : > > Comments on the application from the National Internet Exchange of > India to form a NIR in India /Date/: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:17:58 +0530 > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2009/12/msg00001.html > > The concept of National Internet Registries (as against the Regional > registries such as APNIC) has the potential danger of paving the way > for a geographically – or nationally – fragmented Internet. While the > RIR have already decided to encourage NIR's, ISOC India Chennai wishes > to place on record a general comment common to all NIR's proposed > under the five RIR's: > > It is theoretically possible for any National Government to 'separate' > the Internet within its borders by implementing certain policies and > practices peculiar to its English and IDN ccTLD domain space in > combination with specific policies and practices for the IP address > space under its NIR. This possibility makes it all the more important > for the RIR's to ensure that the local policies of the NIRs do not > conflict in any way with regional or global policies. > > On the application from the National Internet Exchange of India to > form a NIR in India, ISOC India Chennai comments as follows: > > The application to form the NIR in India is filed by the National > Internet Exchange of India (Nixi) together with the Internet Service > Providers Association of India (ISPAI) as a consortium application. > The arrangement proposed by the ISPAI is that Nixi would handle policy > and financial aspects of the NIR while the “full responsibility for > execution” will rest with the ISPAI. > > Clause 3.2..2 of the NIR criteria states “NIR must be ... neutral with > respect to the Internet industry ... NIRs should not provide ISP > services ... ...NIRs should not have any special corporate or > contractual relationship with any ISP within their service region.” > > Nixi was formed by the Department of Information Technology in > association with the Internet Service Providers Association of India. > At least 34 Internet Service Providers (ISPs), including major Class A > ISPs are part of Nixi as peering ISPs. > > The majority of Directors of Nixi are elected by member ISPs. It would > not be entirely correct to assume that Nixi does not have (an > implicit) 'contractual relationship with the ISPs'. By extension, the > NIR proposed as a body jointly promoted by Nixi and ISPAI may not be > free of implied and unspoken contractual relationship with the ISPs. > > While ISOC India Chennai observes that the Internet Service Providers > of India have policies and practices that are largely balanced, it > objects – in principle – to the totality of control that the NIR would > offer to the ISPs. In India in particular, the IP address space > policies of the ISPs have favored large bandwidth users with high > revenue bandwidth plans. Static IP addresses were allotted to users on > bandwidth plans in excess of US $ 300 – 500 per month, while the > average user was not assigned a static IP addresses. While APNIC > allots IP address blocks to ISPs at a negligible cost, the ISPs in > India have indirectly gained substantial revenues by controlling IP > address allocation to users. If the ISPAI or an ISPAI-dominant body is > conceded the role of NIR, IP address space may be managed in such a > way that even the abundant Ipv6 addresses offer indirect revenues to > the ISPs. This is part of the rationale behind our hesitation to > unconditionally support this application. > > In order to ensure that the proposed application for the NIR in India > meets the provisions of Clause 3.2.2 and other clauses, APNIC may > suggest that > > – NIXI should confirm that the proposed NIR would adhere to Internet > Core values > > – NIXI should assure that its operational procedures of the proposed > NIR will be non-discriminatory in any way (race, gender, religion, > political ideology, opinion) > > – NIXI should make sure that the proposed NIR involves equal and > meaningful participation, not only by the Indian ISP community, but > also by a true representation of the Internet User communities. NIXI > should confirm that it intends to function following a > multi-stakeholder participatory model. In the process Nixi should gain > greater independence from the Government > > - NIXI should continue to support the free choice of ISPs to receive > services from the NIR or APNIC and ensure that there are no direct or > indirect pressures on any ISP in India to confine its options to > address space from the NIR. This free choice is of paramount > importance for further development of Internet in India > > While ISOC India Chennai has faith in Nixi as a progressive > institution and feels that a Nixi initiative to form an NIR as broadly > agreeable, it wishes to recommend that APNIC does not rush into a > decision to approve the proposal for the NIR and commissions a study > regarding the restriction of allocation of IP addresses in India. > APNIC may have to wait until there is clear evidence that all ISPs and > all stakeholders have been duly consulted and informed on the proposal > to establish the NIR. > > The most significant ISPs in India are primarily telephone companies > that have transitioned from the telecom sector. These telco/ISPs are > part of large corporate groups that have caused considerable national > economic development in the process of their own business growth; > Their size and importance places them in a position to wield > considerable influence over Internet policies, which makes it > imperative to ensure that these corporations as ISPs do not gain an > even larger position in the Internet arena that would be difficult to > balance. > > ----------------------------------------- end of comments in the > APNIC list on Dec 1, 2009 (as posted in the form of the PDF as attached ) > > > Sivasubramanian M > > http://isocindiachennai.org > > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: > > On 10/23/2011 07:29 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > [...] > > In Europe there used to exist "national" internet registries, named > > at the time "Last Resort registries". With the development of > > knowledge etc there were abandoned. In many countries, a local ISP > > business will rather go to a "neutral" central registry, than to a > > "competitor" local registry. This all is a complicated matter, but > > the current system works and is stable. > > I agree, the current system in which you have basically two > options (NIR > or otherwise) is stable in both cases. > > frt rgds > > --c.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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 03:39:53 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <4EA50E61.9030909@itforchange.net> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> <4EA50E61.9030909@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06 AM, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 21 October 2011 05:02 PM, William Drake wrote: >  So again, if indeed IBSA has shifted, it'd be great for them to say so. >  And for more governments beyond Brazil and a distinct minority of other G77 > to demonstrate that they take the IGF process seriously and will engage even > if it doesn't offer a path to intergovernmental control. > > This is another myth that a strong IGF will get used to pave the path to > inter-governmental control I think you have mis-read Bill's para above. , and such myths appear very easily when the > agenda is to discredit developing countries. Whose agenda is this? Please name names. I have seen no such agenda in the IG realm. > > As Marilia suggests, with the meeting of WG on IGF improvements coming up, > it is time for the civil society to stand up and say if they are for a > stronger and more purposive IGF or not. My submission is that anyone not > ready to make the necessary changes in the IGF status quo is the one really > against multi-stakeholder policy making. I think that there are many in Dakar this week (actually doing MS policy making) that might disagree with you on this. -- 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 KovenRonald at aol.com Mon Oct 24 03:48:53 2011 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 03:48:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 Message-ID: <12e0e.3295464.3bd67265@aol.com> In a message dated 10/23/11 6:33:12 PM, pouzin at well.com writes: > What international agreement allows the USG to make unilateral decisions > on the management of a common good ? > †he US didn't arrogate such a right to itself. It invented the Internet and gave it to the international community. Most of the alternatives proposed to the present system involve giving control to intergovernmental bodies in which authoritarian governments have heavy influence. The present system is admittedly unsatisfactory from a theoretical standpoint, but the US has in practice refrained from exercising control, with only a couple relatively minor exceptions. It seems unlikely that China or Russia, or even France, amongst the UN Security Council permanent members, would have exercised that much self-restraint. Pending invention of a system that is both theoretically equitable and free in practice, the present setup seems to be a matter of leaving well enough alone. Rony Koven, World Press Freedom Committee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 04:00:30 2011 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:30:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again... In-Reply-To: <4EA50FC4.5080801@itforchange.net> References: <4EA2E5EE.2040300@cis-india.org> <4EA312C8.9040602@cafonso.ca> <4EA3E4BB.1090206@cafonso.ca> <4EA50FC4.5080801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder Thank You for your support on this issue. It is good to know that there are some areas where we are in agreement :) The Brazilian Multi-stakeholder model would indeed be better, if constituted in India with a true balance with definite commitment to the multi-stakeholder model of Governance. However, the proposed NIR may still have to leave the option to obtain IP address blocks direct from RIRs with complete freedom for the ISPs to do so. Thank you. Sivasubramanian M On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:42 PM, parminder wrote: > ** > Dear Siva > > IT for Change supports the ISOC Chennai position in the below regard. If an > NIR has to be formed we see no reason for it to have exclusive rights to > addresses for the country. Secondly, as your letter says, it is very > important to divest any potential NIR management from ISPs heaviness. I > think you should specifically propose the Brazilian multistakeholder model > of managing the NIR as what India should adopt. parminder > > > On Sunday 23 October 2011 03:53 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > This proposal came up for discussions in the APNIC list during Dec 2009. I > sent comments from Internet Society India Chennai on December 1, 2009 to > the Executive Secretary of APNIC. (The PDF file as sent is also attached) : > > Comments on the application from the National Internet Exchange of > India to form a NIR in India *Date*: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:17:58 +0530 > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2009/12/msg00001.html > > The concept of National Internet Registries (as against the Regional > registries such as APNIC) has the potential danger of paving the way > for a geographically – or nationally – fragmented Internet. While the > RIR have already decided to encourage NIR's, ISOC India Chennai wishes > to place on record a general comment common to all NIR's proposed > under the five RIR's: > > It is theoretically possible for any National Government to 'separate' > the Internet within its borders by implementing certain policies and > practices peculiar to its English and IDN ccTLD domain space in > combination with specific policies and practices for the IP address > space under its NIR. This possibility makes it all the more important > for the RIR's to ensure that the local policies of the NIRs do not > conflict in any way with regional or global policies. > > On the application from the National Internet Exchange of India to > form a NIR in India, ISOC India Chennai comments as follows: > > The application to form the NIR in India is filed by the National > Internet Exchange of India (Nixi) together with the Internet Service > Providers Association of India (ISPAI) as a consortium application. > The arrangement proposed by the ISPAI is that Nixi would handle policy > and financial aspects of the NIR while the “full responsibility for > execution” will rest with the ISPAI. > > Clause 3.2..2 of the NIR criteria states “NIR must be ... neutral with > respect to the Internet industry ... NIRs should not provide ISP > services ... ...NIRs should not have any special corporate or > contractual relationship with any ISP within their service region.” > > Nixi was formed by the Department of Information Technology in > association with the Internet Service Providers Association of India. > At least 34 Internet Service Providers (ISPs), including major Class A > ISPs are part of Nixi as peering ISPs. > > The majority of Directors of Nixi are elected by member ISPs. It would > not be entirely correct to assume that Nixi does not have (an > implicit) 'contractual relationship with the ISPs'. By extension, the > NIR proposed as a body jointly promoted by Nixi and ISPAI may not be > free of implied and unspoken contractual relationship with the ISPs. > > While ISOC India Chennai observes that the Internet Service Providers > of India have policies and practices that are largely balanced, it > objects – in principle – to the totality of control that the NIR would > offer to the ISPs. In India in particular, the IP address space > policies of the ISPs have favored large bandwidth users with high > revenue bandwidth plans. Static IP addresses were allotted to users on > bandwidth plans in excess of US $ 300 – 500 per month, while the > average user was not assigned a static IP addresses. While APNIC > allots IP address blocks to ISPs at a negligible cost, the ISPs in > India have indirectly gained substantial revenues by controlling IP > address allocation to users. If the ISPAI or an ISPAI-dominant body is > conceded the role of NIR, IP address space may be managed in such a > way that even the abundant Ipv6 addresses offer indirect revenues to > the ISPs. This is part of the rationale behind our hesitation to > unconditionally support this application. > > In order to ensure that the proposed application for the NIR in India > meets the provisions of Clause 3.2.2 and other clauses, APNIC may > suggest that > > – NIXI should confirm that the proposed NIR would adhere to Internet Core > values > > – NIXI should assure that its operational procedures of the proposed > NIR will be non-discriminatory in any way (race, gender, religion, > political ideology, opinion) > > – NIXI should make sure that the proposed NIR involves equal and > meaningful participation, not only by the Indian ISP community, but > also by a true representation of the Internet User communities. NIXI > should confirm that it intends to function following a > multi-stakeholder participatory model. In the process Nixi should gain > greater independence from the Government > > - NIXI should continue to support the free choice of ISPs to receive > services from the NIR or APNIC and ensure that there are no direct or > indirect pressures on any ISP in India to confine its options to > address space from the NIR. This free choice is of paramount > importance for further development of Internet in India > > While ISOC India Chennai has faith in Nixi as a progressive > institution and feels that a Nixi initiative to form an NIR as broadly > agreeable, it wishes to recommend that APNIC does not rush into a > decision to approve the proposal for the NIR and commissions a study > regarding the restriction of allocation of IP addresses in India. > APNIC may have to wait until there is clear evidence that all ISPs and > all stakeholders have been duly consulted and informed on the proposal > to establish the NIR. > > The most significant ISPs in India are primarily telephone companies > that have transitioned from the telecom sector. These telco/ISPs are > part of large corporate groups that have caused considerable national > economic development in the process of their own business growth; > Their size and importance places them in a position to wield > considerable influence over Internet policies, which makes it > imperative to ensure that these corporations as ISPs do not gain an > even larger position in the Internet arena that would be difficult to > balance. > > ----------------------------------------- end of comments in the APNIC > list on Dec 1, 2009 (as posted in the form of the PDF as attached ) > > > Sivasubramanian M > > http://isocindiachennai.org > > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> On 10/23/2011 07:29 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> [...] >> > In Europe there used to exist "national" internet registries, named >> > at the time "Last Resort registries". With the development of >> > knowledge etc there were abandoned. In many countries, a local ISP >> > business will rather go to a "neutral" central registry, than to a >> > "competitor" local registry. This all is a complicated matter, but >> > the current system works and is stable. >> >> I agree, the current system in which you have basically two options (NIR >> or otherwise) is stable in both cases. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 24 04:18:35 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:48:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> <4EA50E61.9030909@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4EA51F5B.3010006@itforchange.net> On Monday 24 October 2011 01:09 PM, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06 AM, parminder wrote: > >> On Friday 21 October 2011 05:02 PM, William Drake wrote: >> > > >> So again, if indeed IBSA has shifted, it'd be great for them to say so. >> And for more governments beyond Brazil and a distinct minority of other G77 >> to demonstrate that they take the IGF process seriously and will engage even >> if it doesn't offer a path to intergovernmental control. >> >> This is another myth that a strong IGF will get used to pave the path to >> inter-governmental control >> > I think you have mis-read Bill's para above. > I dont see how? Can you pl explain > snip >> As Marilia suggests, with the meeting of WG on IGF improvements coming up, >> it is time for the civil society to stand up and say if they are for a >> stronger and more purposive IGF or not. My submission is that anyone not >> ready to make the necessary changes in the IGF status quo is the one really >> against multi-stakeholder policy making. >> > > I think that there are many in Dakar this week (actually doing MS > policy making) that might disagree with you on this. > McTim, We have been over this many times. I have said often that I have little problem with many models of technical standards and technical policy making that the kind of organisations you mention do. My main problem is with the kind of work OECD's Internet policy making apparatuses do, by defualt for the whole world. They write policy frameworks for search engines, for social media, for IP over the Internet, privacy, and so on. And they do it in an undemocratic manner, without including developing countries. And I find this as an unacceptable model. Now, can you please specifically state your position on these kinds of larger social pulbic policy issues, instead of everytime responding to my emails concerning these issues with descriptions of technical policy making systems. That would be very useful to take this dialogue forward, especially since I have clearly stated above my broad view about existing technical policy systems. (I do have some problems with them, but that is not the primary burden of my IG related engagements.) parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Oct 24 04:28:03 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:28:03 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> <4EA50B9F.802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C667@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody, it is very welcome that we have this discussion around IBSA. BTW. I would like to see a similar readiness by Chinese and Russian individuals/institutions to discuss the "Code of Conduct" Proposal by the Shanghai group. Back to IBSA: Parminder, it is not true that "Westeners" do not realize the changes of the project since it was first submitted (I rememeber that Barzil was fighting for a legally binding "Convention" before the 2nd IGF in Rio). I - and many others - were really impressed by the courage that both the Indian and Brazilan governmental representatives had in Nairobi to face a very controversial open discussion in plenaries and workshops around the proposal. This helped very much to differentiate between the "objective" and the "means" to achieve this objective. I think that people understand (and accept) that IBSA countries want to play a stronger role in global politics, including Internet politics. But they disagree that a new intergovernmental organisation is the right answer. The three leaders have said in their Tshwane Declaration in para. 7 (under the chapter "Global Governance Reform), that "the current international system has to be more reflective of the needs and priorities of developing countries" and they underlined with regard to "Internet Governance" that the IBSA countriesey have the potential "to enhance IBSAs profile as a key player". This is okay and will get a lot of support. In particular, as the declaration says in para.1, that IBSA sees itself "as a purely South-South grouping of like-minded countries". If we describe Internet Governance as a multilayer multiplayer mechanism than more players are welcome and can lead to a higher level of inclusion and broader diversity (as long as the processes are open and transparent and embedded into the multistakeholder einvronment). The differences start with the means how to achieve this goal. I have noticed that the "Tswane Declaration" does not refer to a new intergovernmental organisation as an oversight body for non-governmental Internet mechanisms. It says only (para. 54) that the leaders reiterate "the urgent need to operationalise the process of "enhanced cooperation". And they "take note" of the recommendations of the Rio IBSA workshop, without mentioning the concrete proposal or giving a sub-group a manadate to draft a charter for a new intergovernmental organisation. In my eyes this means, that the approach is still open for discussion. To have a decentralized oversight mechanism with participants from all stakeholder groups as members could do the job as well. This is the "new territory" we have to explore together: CS and governments and others and North and South. But another point is the proposal in para. 55 which is probably more important than the EC proposal in para. 54. In 55 the leaders emphasize "Internet Governance as a key strategic area that requires close collaboration and concrete action." It would have been certainly better if they would have said "close multistakeholder cooperation". But they did also not say "intergovernmental collaboration". So here is space for a broad multistakeholder debate, einriched by voices from the IBSA countries. This is good. And even more: The concrete proposal in para. 55 is the establishment of an "IBSA Internet Governance ans Development Observatory", This is a very concrete new proposal which I would fully support. As a reminder, the IGC proposed in the WSIS Interim PrepCom in Paris in July 2003 such an observatory based on multistkakeholder collaboration. The observatory idea of the ciivl society became the core of what later was called (within WGIG) the "forum function" and led to the IGF adopted by WSIS II in Tunis. So my proposal is that the IGC supports fully this IBSA project. I would even go one step further and ask the IBSA countries, why to have an "IBSA observatory" onlay? Why not to have an "IGF observatory" which would make the IGF certainly stronger as proposed by Parminder. BTW, in our Council of Europe expert meeting last week in Paris - were we discussed the implementation of the COE Internet Governance Declaration of Principles - we also proposed to the 47 member states of the COE the launch of an "Internet Governance Observatory" with a mandate to start with a collection of national laws relevant for Internet Governance. The Council of Europe is (since 1992) the host of the "Audiovisual Observatory" in Strasbourg which does similar things for the audfio-visual media, in particular broadcasting. So lets move forward and lets support this constructive proposal. And IGF Internet Governance Observatory, based on regional depositories, could be big step forward to bring more transparency to Internet Governance Policy Making and would help to strengthen the role of developing countries. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: Mo 24.10.2011 08:54 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration On Friday 21 October 2011 05:02 PM, William Drake wrote: Too much to hope for? Bill If intergovernmental control could be taken off the table, at least outside the ITU, that might help to make "IGF improvements" a less divisive topic. One important point about the Rio recs is that it was the first time the IBSA countries moved from the demand for 'an existing or a new UN based agency' (as called for in Dec 2010 UNDESA consultation and July 2011 ECOSOC meeting) to calling for a 'new agency' . IBSA thus did show the eagerness to look at new institutional options more in keeping with the present situation than sticking to ITU. It is unfortunate that all critics failed to take notice of this important devleopment, which I must say is not easy to sustain unless the few devleoping countries that are ready to stick their neck out for such new possibilities get the right kind of support. There is every likelihood that we will slip into the default ITU position. It is but obvious that some place has to look into the innumerable Internet related global public policy issues that keep cropping up. And, sorry, it cant be OECD for the developing countries, whether the global civil society engaged in the IG arena is sensitive to this basic democratic proposition or not. In this regard I also refer to Bill's earlier email of last Fridat whereby the ITU hold over taking charge of the global Internet related policy space is getting strengthened. I also noticed in the presentation of ITU head to the IGF that ITU has bene creeping into areas beyond hard infrastructure or even security to content related issues, Such a creeping acquisition will continue unless we are able to come up with credible alternative global institutional option. I can assure you all people of best intentions that are being completely unsympathetic to IBSA countries' effort to move things along towards a more democratic and public interest oriented global IG regime that it wont hold water just to tell IBSA or other developing countries to shut up, and bear with powerful countries and global corporates unilaterally setting the new global techno-social order. If Rio recs has problems - and I think it has significant issues (which I will discuss separately) - let us say so. Say this is wrong,and instead we should do this. Say that we are dissatisfied with existing IG regime, and this is the manner in which we think it can be made more democratic and participative. This is how the civil society can have an active and strong voice and influence, and that, this is the model of global Internet related policy development that we suggest. 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Oct 24 05:05:19 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:05:19 +1100 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <12e0e.3295464.3bd67265@aol.com> Message-ID: Hi Ronald, >†he US didn't arrogate such a right to itself. It invented the Internet and gave it to the international > community. Well hardly, although I realise many people believe this to be true. The Internet was invented simultaneously in several countries as a cooperative effort – for more on simultaneous invention and its commonality, particularly in technical areas, it’s worth reading http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1856610 . The sole invention of the Internet in the Arpanet computer time sharing experiments sponsored by the US Government is a convenient myth – Louis Pouzin’s work in France, Donald Davies’ work in UK, the private enterprise work conducted by John Schoch and others at Parc Xerox Labs, all of these have equally credible claims to the origins of the Internet. There are a few other more indirect claims as well which various historians are now beginning to write up. I have an out of date paper on this at http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/origins.html which I hope to revise one day as there are many omissions there. The single point of origin myth is propagated by those who don’t know better or who have something to gain by not having the full story known. The US Government does not own the Internet, has no intellectual property rights to it, did not develop it unilaterally, and really has no right to determine its future unilaterally. That being said – yes I agree with you, their past involvement has been benign and actually useful in the development of the Internet. But the time has now come for ICANN to be able to perform the IANA functions without a role for the US Government. Ian Peter From: Reply-To: , Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 03:48:53 -0400 (EDT) To: , Cc: Subject: Re: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In a message dated 10/23/11 6:33:12 PM, pouzin at well.com writes: What international agreement allows the USG to make unilateral decisions on the management of a common good ? †he US didn't arrogate such a right to itself. It invented the Internet and gave it to the international community. Most of the alternatives proposed to the present system involve giving control to intergovernmental bodies in which authoritarian governments have heavy influence. The present system is admittedly unsatisfactory from a theoretical standpoint, but the US has in practice refrained from exercising control, with only a couple relatively minor exceptions. It seems unlikely that China or Russia, or even France, amongst the UN Security Council permanent members, would have exercised that much self-restraint. Pending invention of a system that is both theoretically equitable and free in practice, the present setup seems to be a matter of leaving well enough alone. Rony Koven, World Press Freedom Committee ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Oct 24 05:46:42 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:46:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet origin (was: IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 24, 2011, at 9:05 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > The Internet was invented simultaneously in several countries as a cooperative effort ... . The sole invention of the Internet in the Arpanet computer time sharing experiments sponsored by the US Government is a convenient myth – Louis Pouzin’s work in France, Donald Davies’ work in UK, the private enterprise work conducted by John Schoch and others at Parc Xerox Labs, all of these have equally credible claims to the origins of the Internet. There are a few other more indirect claims as well which various historians are now beginning to write up. I have an out of date paper on this at http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/origins.html which I hope to revise one day as there are many omissions there. Ian - By your four criteria outlined in the paper (connection between networks, involving computers, involving humans communicating with each other, and an actual event), could you please indicate what event you feel meets these criteria and therefore qualifies as the "Invention of the Internet? You outlined how several do not qualify by these criteria, but do not identify any event which does. Thanks, /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From briceabba at hotmail.com Mon Oct 24 05:47:42 2011 From: briceabba at hotmail.com (Brice Abba) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:47:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] SUCCESSFULL CONCLUSION OF IPV6 LAB ISOC COTE D'VOIRE Message-ID: Hi ALL, ISOC Cote Cote D’Ivoire successfully concluded a 2 day training workshop In Abidjan Cote D’Ivoire. The workshop ran from the 21 – 22 october 2011 at Labtic Abidjan. The technical workshop was preceded by a one day of IPv6 theory which brought together many ISPs of Cote D’Ivoire. During the workshop participants learned the following: [+] AFRINIC and ISOC presentation. [+] IPV6 basic. [+] Configuration of a basic IPv6 network (host configuration, routing and transition techniques) [+] The full course outline is available at the following URLs # IPv6: http://www.afrinic.net/training/ipv6training.htm Brice ABBA Ingénieur en Sciences InformatiquesAdmin Système SAFRAN MORPHOResp. DNSsec au NIC CI et LABTIC, LARIT mob: (+225)-08-607-228 fix(home): (+225)-23-512-912 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Oct 24 06:00:53 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:00:53 +0800 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA53755.2080509@ciroap.org> On 24/10/11 17:05, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Ronald, > > >†he US didn't arrogate such a right to itself. It invented the > Internet and gave it to the international > community. > > Well hardly, although I realise many people believe this to be true. Moreover, its invention cannot be separated from its availability to the international community. If it could have been withheld from the international community, it wouldn't have been the Internet, it would have been AOL. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2370 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 06:26:49 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:26:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] IBSA - Tshwane Declaration In-Reply-To: <4EA51F5B.3010006@itforchange.net> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> <4EA50E61.9030909@itforchange.net> <4EA51F5B.3010006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:18 AM, parminder wrote: > >  So again, if indeed IBSA has shifted, it'd be great for them to say so. >  And for more governments beyond Brazil and a distinct minority of other G77 > to demonstrate that they > > This is another myth that a strong IGF will get used to pave the path to > inter-governmental control > > > I think you have mis-read Bill's para above. > > > I dont see how? Can you pl explain Bill said: it would be great if more governments "took the IGF process seriously and will engage even if it doesn't offer a path to intergovernmental control. You said: "This is another myth that a strong IGF will get used to pave the path to inter-governmental control" sounds like a non-sequitur to me. > > snip > > As Marilia suggests, with the meeting of WG on IGF improvements coming up, > it is time for the civil society to stand up and say if they are for a > stronger and more purposive IGF or not. My submission is that anyone not > ready to make the necessary changes in the IGF status quo is the one really > against multi-stakeholder policy making. > > > I think that there are many in Dakar this week (actually doing MS > policy making) that might disagree with you on this. > > > McTim, We have been over this many times. I have said often that I have > little problem with many models of technical standards and technical policy > making that the kind of organisations you mention do. My main problem is > with the kind of work OECD's Internet policy making apparatuses do, by > defualt for the whole world. They write policy frameworks for search > engines, for social media, for IP over the Internet, privacy, and so on. And > they do it in an undemocratic manner, without including developing > countries. And I find this as an unacceptable model. Now, can you please > specifically state your position on these kinds of larger social pulbic > policy issues, Well what you actually wrote was: "My submission is that anyone not ready to make the necessary changes in the IGF status quo is the one really against multi-stakeholder policy making." I was reacting to that. I am not generally in favor of any intergovernmental-only policy making in re: Internet things whether public policy large or small, technical or more 'social'. -- 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 Mon Oct 24 06:39:29 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:39:29 +1300 Subject: [governance] IDN Variants Message-ID: Dear All, Greetings from Dakar! As I write this, we are gearing up for the Opening Ceremony in Dakar. This year's ICANN 42 promises to be exciting. It is good to meet some people on this list here and also to make new friends and learn about developments in their countries. I am in a room listening to certain speakers speak about IDN variants which are so very exciting and interesting. You can access and view their study reports via http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-03oct11-en.htm It is so interesting to see how certain scripts are politically charged, the similarity in phonetics or confusingly similar script. Whilst IDNs have been around for some time, I am sensing that it will only accelerate in its prominence in the not too distant future. Best Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 06:50:31 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:50:31 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: IDN Variants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Greeks are inviting public comments on their Variant Proposal and will close on the 14th November 2011. For those who are also in ISOC or chapters thereof, streaming is available via Punkcast. On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Greetings from Dakar! As I write this, we are gearing up for the Opening > Ceremony in Dakar. This year's ICANN 42 promises to be exciting. It is good > to meet some people on this list here and also to make new friends and learn > about developments in their countries. > > I am in a room listening to certain speakers speak about IDN variants which > are so very exciting and interesting. You can access and view their study > reports via > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-03oct11-en.htm > > It is so interesting to see how certain scripts are politically charged, > the similarity in phonetics or confusingly similar script. Whilst IDNs have > been around for some time, I am sensing that it will only accelerate in its > prominence in the not too distant future. > > Best Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 07:02:05 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:02:05 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: IDN Variants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Presentations are available: http://dakar42.icann.org/node/26835 On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > The Greeks are inviting public comments on their Variant Proposal and will > close on the 14th November 2011. > > For those who are also in ISOC or chapters thereof, streaming is available > via Punkcast. > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Greetings from Dakar! As I write this, we are gearing up for the Opening >> Ceremony in Dakar. This year's ICANN 42 promises to be exciting. It is good >> to meet some people on this list here and also to make new friends and learn >> about developments in their countries. >> >> I am in a room listening to certain speakers speak about IDN variants >> which are so very exciting and interesting. You can access and view their >> study reports via >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-03oct11-en.htm >> >> It is so interesting to see how certain scripts are politically charged, >> the similarity in phonetics or confusingly similar script. Whilst IDNs have >> been around for some time, I am sensing that it will only accelerate in its >> prominence in the not too distant future. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Mon Oct 24 09:01:51 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:01:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again... In-Reply-To: References: <4EA2E5EE.2040300@cis-india.org> <4EA312C8.9040602@cafonso.ca> <4EA3E4BB.1090206@cafonso.ca> <4EA50FC4.5080801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Oct 24, 2011, at 08:00 , Sivasubramanian M wrote: > However, the proposed NIR may still have to leave the option to obtain IP address blocks direct from RIRs with complete freedom for the ISPs to do so. One possible reason to introduce NIR would be to reduce costs to local parties, such as ISPs and large IP address space users. However, this also means that this will disrupt the business model of the RIRs and therefore will require significant participation on part of the NIR in the RIR costs. This scheme assumes the costs for the local users are significantly lower when going via the NIR. When you have both direct and via NIR allocations from the RIR, the question may arise: who will bear the costs of the NIR existence. If you can sort that out then without doubt such scheme may be useful. The RIR will have to agree too… Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Oct 24 09:15:06 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:15:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <4EA53755.2080509@ciroap.org> References: <4EA53755.2080509@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <1EC3E9A5-ED42-4C3D-876E-1D3D8F4BAFEE@istaff.org> On Oct 24, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Moreover, its invention cannot be separated from its availability to the international community. If it could have been withheld from the international community, it wouldn't have been the Internet, it would have been AOL. You're quite correct, in that there was intentional decisions made so that Internet could be available outside the US. While the ARPANET did not specifically have goals of "connecting people", the CSNET network which followed was specifically designed to connect people at computer science institutions _globally_. Like the ARPANET, it ran TCP/IP and made use of unique identifiers (e.g. IP addresses, domain names) which were coordinated under USG contract. The NSFNET program which followed even had a specific grant program (the International Connections Manager) which targeted connecting new countries to the Internet. Making the Internet available globally does not imply lack of USG control, and fact of the matter is that all of these programs received USG funding to get started, and made use of "critical resource" identifiers which were managed under USG contract per policies under USG approval. Regardless of "invention", the history of the management of Internet identifiers has always had some form of USG involvement, generally with the concurrence of the IETF (which has some ownership as the standards organization responsible for the protocols themselves) Fortunately, as has already been pointed out, the US has generally supported the transition from top-down contracting vehicles to more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder processes for management of these identifiers. In the IP world, this included the decentralization of the IP address mgmt with the delegations to RIPE NCC and APNIC, the approval to move the remaining IP address management from NSI to ARIN in 1997. In DNS, steps include the formation of ICANN to provide a more international and open process for DNS policy coordination as well as the expiration & replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. If someone can point out another organization (other than the USG) which has been consciously releasing its control over the Internet in preference to multistakeholder mechanisms, I'd love to hear about it. The evolution to fully free standing certainly is taking a long-time, but that's as much about the maturity of ICANN and multiple new players wanting control in this space as it is about USG letting go. 100% my own personal views. I certainly am not speaking for ARIN, the NRO, ICANN, ISOC/IAB/IESG/IETF, IGF, IOC, CPSR, CSPAN, CNN, or any government anywhere. /John p.s. Jon passed some 13 years ago, and there is not a day that goes by that I do not miss him. Were it not for his efforts to create a stable international multistakeholder framework for all of this, we would not be even discussing the matter of the IANA solicitation (because there'd simply be no ICANN to bid for it, and instead we'd all be very familiar with the comment process for whatever US agency was making policy on behalf of everyone globally...) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 09:28:39 2011 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:58:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again... In-Reply-To: References: <4EA2E5EE.2040300@cis-india.org> <4EA312C8.9040602@cafonso.ca> <4EA3E4BB.1090206@cafonso.ca> <4EA50FC4.5080801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Daniel Kalchev, Cost would be a lesser consideration for the ISPs and bulk IP users in a situation where an imaginary NIR in an imaginary country operates with policies that makes it difficult for some users to obtain IP addresses - a situation wherein a class of users are denied or delayed the allocation of IP addresses for reasons other than monetary reasons. The idea of alternate sources for IP addresses is to ensure that IP address allocation does not get blocked by for any reason for those users who have a need for IP addresses. In actual practice, the NIR may operate so well with such fair practices that most of the bulk users and ISPs wouldn't have any reason to choose the alternate source ( RIR ). About the NIR's participation in the RIR's costs, I am sure that the NIRs may agree on some form of NIR fee payable to the RIRs which would indeed translate to a minuscule cost per IP address, which could be balanced by charging a minimal fee for the addresses allotted. Even with the provision to allow (without any bottlenecks) allocations direct by the RIRs, it is important to ensure that the NIRs will be on a truly multi-stakeholder model, that too with symbolic Government participation and non-ISP business participation. Sivasubramanian M On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > On Oct 24, 2011, at 08:00 , Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > However, the proposed NIR may still have to leave the option to obtain IP > address blocks direct from RIRs with complete freedom for the ISPs to do so. > > > One possible reason to introduce NIR would be to reduce costs to local > parties, such as ISPs and large IP address space users. However, this also > means that this will disrupt the business model of the RIRs and therefore > will require significant participation on part of the NIR in the RIR costs. > This scheme assumes the costs for the local users are significantly lower > when going via the NIR. > > When you have both direct and via NIR allocations from the RIR, the > question may arise: who will bear the costs of the NIR existence. If you can > sort that out then without doubt such scheme may be useful. The RIR will > have to agree too… > > Daniel > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 09:30:41 2011 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:00:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again... In-Reply-To: References: <4EA2E5EE.2040300@cis-india.org> <4EA312C8.9040602@cafonso.ca> <4EA3E4BB.1090206@cafonso.ca> <4EA50FC4.5080801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Dear Daniel Kalchev, > > Cost would be a lesser consideration for the ISPs and bulk IP users in a > situation where an imaginary NIR in an imaginary country operates with > policies that makes it difficult for some users to obtain IP addresses - a > situation wherein a class of users are denied or delayed the allocation of > IP addresses for reasons other than monetary reasons. > > The idea of alternate sources for IP addresses is to ensure that IP address > allocation does not get blocked by for any reason for those users who have a > need for IP addresses. In actual practice, the NIR may operate so well with > such fair practices that most of the bulk users and ISPs wouldn't have any > reason to choose the alternate source ( RIR ). > > About the NIR's participation in the RIR's costs, I am sure that the NIRs > may agree on some form of NIR fee payable to the RIRs which would indeed > translate to a minuscule cost per IP address, which could be balanced by > charging a minimal fee for the addresses allotted. > > Even with the provision to allow (without any bottlenecks) allocations > direct by the RIRs, it is important to ensure that the NIRs will be on a > truly multi-stakeholder model, that too with symbolic Government > participation and non-ISP business participation. > ( I meant including non-ISP participation, i.e. business participation by way of ISPs + non-ISPs ) > > Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > >> >> On Oct 24, 2011, at 08:00 , Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> >> However, the proposed NIR may still have to leave the option to obtain IP >> address blocks direct from RIRs with complete freedom for the ISPs to do so. >> >> >> One possible reason to introduce NIR would be to reduce costs to local >> parties, such as ISPs and large IP address space users. However, this also >> means that this will disrupt the business model of the RIRs and therefore >> will require significant participation on part of the NIR in the RIR costs. >> This scheme assumes the costs for the local users are significantly lower >> when going via the NIR. >> >> When you have both direct and via NIR allocations from the RIR, the >> question may arise: who will bear the costs of the NIR existence. If you can >> sort that out then without doubt such scheme may be useful. The RIR will >> have to agree too… >> >> Daniel >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Oct 24 10:03:02 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:03:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <1EC3E9A5-ED42-4C3D-876E-1D3D8F4BAFEE@istaff.org> (message from John Curran on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:15:06 +0000) References: <4EA53755.2080509@ciroap.org> <1EC3E9A5-ED42-4C3D-876E-1D3D8F4BAFEE@istaff.org> Message-ID: <20111024140303.074D015C211@quill.bollow.ch> John Curran wrote: > If someone can point out another organization (other than the USG) > which has been consciously releasing its control over the Internet in > preference to multistakeholder mechanisms, I'd love to hear about it. I think the key question is whether this "IANA contract" event is a continuation of that USG policy of "consciously releasing its control over the Internet", or whether it is a change of policy aiming at asserting and protecting some (greater?) degree of control, possibly in reaction to demands to strengthen the UN role in Internet Governance. RFC 2850 says the following: The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) administers various protocol parameters used by IETF protocols, delegating this administration as appropriate. The IAB must approve the appointment of an organization to act as IANA on behalf of the IETF. The IANA takes technical direction on IETF protocols from the IESG. I understand this as an indication that eleven years ago when this was written, IANA was seen as "acting on behalf of the IETF", not as acting on behalf of the USG. 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 10:14:02 2011 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 07:14:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <12e0e.3295464.3bd67265@aol.com> References: <12e0e.3295464.3bd67265@aol.com> Message-ID: Dear Ronald, As I never fail to remind people whenever the comment "the US invented the Internet" sentence is uttered in such a context, what we call "the Internet" today is more the World Wide Web than the actual infrastructure of IP networks. If the Internet and its protocols were indeed invented by people in the context of a DARPA research contract, the Web was invented in Europe, by a British citizen. And if a Frenchman says it, ...it may be true :-) The Internet as an infrastructure and all applications built upon it are probably the most successful distributed collaborative effort in the history of mankind. The origin is important to explain path dependency, but is only an element in the general current landscape. Best B. On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:48 AM, wrote: > > In a message dated 10/23/11 6:33:12 PM, pouzin at well.com writes: > > > What international agreement allows the USG to make unilateral decisions on > the management of a common good ? > > > †he US didn't arrogate such a right to itself. It invented the Internet > and gave it to the international community. > > Most of the alternatives proposed to the present system involve giving > control to intergovernmental bodies in which authoritarian governments have > heavy influence. The present system is admittedly unsatisfactory from a > theoretical standpoint, but the US has in practice refrained from exercising > control, with only a couple relatively minor exceptions. It seems unlikely > that China or Russia, or even France, amongst the UN Security Council > permanent members, would have exercised that much self-restraint. > > Pending invention of a system that is both theoretically equitable and free > in practice, the present setup seems to be a matter of leaving well enough > alone. > > Rony Koven, World Press Freedom Committee > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Oct 24 10:41:35 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:41:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <20111024140303.074D015C211@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4EA53755.2080509@ciroap.org> <1EC3E9A5-ED42-4C3D-876E-1D3D8F4BAFEE@istaff.org> <20111024140303.074D015C211@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20111024140303.074D015C211 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 16:03:02 on Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Norbert Bollow writes > >RFC 2850 says the following: > > The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) administers various > protocol parameters used by IETF protocols, delegating this > administration as appropriate. The IAB must approve the appointment > of an organization to act as IANA on behalf of the IETF. The IANA > takes technical direction on IETF protocols from the IESG. > >I understand this as an indication that eleven years ago when this was >written, IANA was seen as "acting on behalf of the IETF", not as >acting on behalf of the USG. That's only one of IANA's three functions. But suggestions that IANA's functions be separated have always been controversial. -- 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 jcurran at istaff.org Mon Oct 24 10:43:24 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:43:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <20111024140303.074D015C211@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4EA53755.2080509@ciroap.org> <1EC3E9A5-ED42-4C3D-876E-1D3D8F4BAFEE@istaff.org> <20111024140303.074D015C211@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5466E2C4-EBBA-4050-938C-BEE91006802F@istaff.org> On Oct 24, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > John Curran wrote: >> If someone can point out another organization (other than the USG) >> which has been consciously releasing its control over the Internet in >> preference to multistakeholder mechanisms, I'd love to hear about it. > > I think the key question is whether this "IANA contract" event is > a continuation of that USG policy of "consciously releasing its control > over the Internet", or whether it is a change of policy aiming at > asserting and protecting some (greater?) degree of control, possibly > in reaction to demands to strengthen the UN role in Internet Governance. Is there any evidence to support such a question, or is this purely a rhetorical exercise? > RFC 2850 says the following: > > The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) administers various > protocol parameters used by IETF protocols, delegating this > administration as appropriate. The IAB must approve the appointment > of an organization to act as IANA on behalf of the IETF. The IANA > takes technical direction on IETF protocols from the IESG. > > I understand this as an indication that eleven years ago when this was > written, IANA was seen as "acting on behalf of the IETF", not as > acting on behalf of the USG. The relationship between the IAB and ICANN's IANA tasking is specified in RFC 2860. The IAB gives leave for ICANN and its constituent bodies to attend to the assignment of domain names and IP address blocks, noting such matters present "policy issues" beyond technical considerations. Yes, it was quite convenient that both DoC and the IAB recognized ICANN as a reasonable party to perform IANA functions, as misalignment on this point would have been rather challenging during ICANN's formative period. /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Oct 24 11:00:10 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:00:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: <12e0e.3295464.3bd67265@aol.com> Message-ID: <47B20966-FEDB-4091-A604-90CB42A1F009@istaff.org> On Oct 24, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > As I never fail to remind people whenever the comment "the US invented the Internet" sentence is uttered in such a context, what we call "the Internet" today is more the World Wide Web than the actual infrastructure of IP networks. Agreed - from the perspective of the average Internet user... it really does not matter if IP transport and DNS are working fine, if the web page doesn't load, "The Internet" is down. :-) > If the Internet and its protocols were indeed invented by people in the context of a DARPA research contract, the Web was invented in Europe, by a British citizen. And if a Frenchman says it, ...it may be true :-) Definitively true: while much work happened globally on making the world wide web a success, the invention itself has a clear origin with TimBL's efforts. The early URL standardization work (starting with the Living Documents BoF in March 1992 IETF in San Diego) was a huge push forward, but that was more about expanding the existing work from CERN to encompass new protocols and encodings. > The Internet as an infrastructure and all applications built upon it are probably the most successful distributed collaborative effort in the history of mankind. The origin is important to explain path dependency, but is only an element in the general current landscape. Correct. I seldom even bother to delve into the "Internet" history discussions, but if one wishes to understand the lineage of the various interlocking claims of authority, it can be a necessary burden. /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Oct 24 11:22:30 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:22:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <5466E2C4-EBBA-4050-938C-BEE91006802F@istaff.org> (message from John Curran on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:43:24 +0000) References: <4EA53755.2080509@ciroap.org> <1EC3E9A5-ED42-4C3D-876E-1D3D8F4BAFEE@istaff.org> <20111024140303.074D015C211@quill.bollow.ch> <5466E2C4-EBBA-4050-938C-BEE91006802F@istaff.org> Message-ID: <20111024152230.4858715C211@quill.bollow.ch> John Curran wrote: > > John Curran wrote: > >> If someone can point out another organization (other than the USG) > >> which has been consciously releasing its control over the Internet in > >> preference to multistakeholder mechanisms, I'd love to hear about it. > > > > I think the key question is whether this "IANA contract" event is > > a continuation of that USG policy of "consciously releasing its control > > over the Internet", or whether it is a change of policy aiming at > > asserting and protecting some (greater?) degree of control, possibly > > in reaction to demands to strengthen the UN role in Internet Governance. > > Is there any evidence to support such a question, or is this purely a > rhetorical exercise? According to RFC 2850 (published in the year 2000), the ICANN's IANA department is acting "as IANA on behalf of the IETF", and its appointment to this role was approved by IAB. I understand this as implying that in the year 2000, the US Government was not opposed that that perspective on IANA. Now the US Government apparantly believes to have the authority to unilaterally decide who performs the IANA function. This looks to me like the US Government taking back authority that it had previously given away (or at least pretended to give away). So I feel quite justified in asking whether this is a policy change of some kind, or what is it? Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Mon Oct 24 11:45:47 2011 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:45:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: <12e0e.3295464.3bd67265@aol.com> Message-ID: <201110241545.p9OFjt4J000610@es.funredes.org> I cannot resist agreeing and complementing Ian's statement on a subject which is quite sensitive when one of the keywords for the present and future of networks is clearly "internationalization". The day we have been confusing the Internet protocol (TCP-IP) with the network of networks (the Internet) we have been helping the "official history of the Internet" to make easily its way into medias. And as most "official history" it is a subttle manipulation of facts (some sort of official histery...;-)) towards some particular interests. In networks, there are two layers not to be confused: the technological one (referred by Ian) and the sociological (every thing we could be referred as "the culture of networks" which deal with users and applications and how they relate to each other and how this impact the life of people and communities). Ian stated, with examples, that the story of the technological layer is not so simple as stated by the official history (Arpanet being the "father of everything") . We could add, beyond national research for networks in some European countries, the networks protocols of large companies such as IBM, Digital or Bull. The basic high level functional building blocks of networks, from which the rest can be built upon, whatever the protocol, are email, file transfer and remote logon. In 1970, many employees of large computers companies were using those functions worldwide, although restricted to their colleagues. So in few words in the early 70's many groups world wide have experimented with networking as a technological matter; nothing has come from scratch in US DoD and has evolved solely into what we got today!!! As far as the sociological layer is concerned, and indeed real history will remember this one as the most impacting for society (note below), the credit to be put on Arpanet and follow-up IP architecture is not null (the wonderful participative system of RFC and IETF which has allowed the architecture to evolve better than any other .. and, in any case, better that the defunct OSI system so strongly pushed by European Union as the orthodox norm til 92). However, this contribution is quite marginal compared to the newtorks which have created, in the 80's, the foundation of the network culture: BITNET/EARN, with its strength on the academic and research world and UUCP (including USENET) with its strength in the libertarian circles, to cite only the two most importants (the book "The Matrix", from John Quarterman, remains the bible for whoever wants to understand network history at the pre Internet stage). And those two networks are not binded to any specific countries and the history was truly international. The charter of BITNET has made more for network culture than any other technical invention. LISTSERV, the father of virtual communities, was designed in Ecole des Mines, Paris; The World Wide Web was designed in CERN Geneva and an interesting technical challenge would be to decide wether the web protocol would have emerged on the top of other protocols than IP (says OSI or BSC/RJE for instance).. which I think is true. Anyway, during the period which has marked the creation of network culture, the 80's, Arpanet has hardly the influence of the other networks which figure of users climb to 2 millions in 1990. Equalling The Internet (the net of net) with Internet (the protocol) tends to blurr this part of the history and move unjustifically credits from other efforts towards a single one.... and accidentaly (?) give national credits to a single country. This is why, in any language, I personally keep differenciating "Internet" and "The Internet" and we should accept that the Internet is a collective effort were people from all around the world have contributed in a complex and not straightforward history. Note: If one analyze, for instance, the impact of the car industry in the life of world wide citizen, has the design of the engine, wether it is diesel or gas, such an importance compare to the sociological effects of the functionality of being able to move people and objects at various times the speed of a walking person? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Oct 24 12:13:23 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:13:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <20111024152230.4858715C211@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4EA53755.2080509@ciroap.org> <1EC3E9A5-ED42-4C3D-876E-1D3D8F4BAFEE@istaff.org> <20111024140303.074D015C211@quill.bollow.ch> <5466E2C4-EBBA-4050-938C-BEE91006802F@istaff.org> <20111024152230.4858715C211@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <81309079-5233-4A5D-808D-FD963B9C74A7@istaff.org> On Oct 24, 2011, at 3:22 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > According to RFC 2850 (published in the year 2000), the ICANN's IANA > department is acting "as IANA on behalf of the IETF", and its > appointment to this role was approved by IAB. Specifically, the IAB believes that it has the ability to direct the IANA's range of action, as specifically stated in their second IANA NOI response, which notes "... IANA's actions are constrained by the technical boundary conditions as set by the IETF." > I understand this as implying that in the year 2000, the US Government > was not opposed that that perspective on IANA. I'm uncertain how the publication of RFC 2850 implies anything with respect to USG position at the time. It was well known at the time that both IAB and USG made various claims regarding authority to direct the IANA; the entire purpose of RFC 2860 was to delineate these authorities, in particular with respect to identifiers with policy implications. > Now the US Government apparantly believes to have the authority to > unilaterally decide who performs the IANA function. And this is unchanged from the first IANA contract issuance by DoC. We can all stare at the announcement until we start seeing things, but as far I can tell there's a distinct lack of evidence of any policy change at this time. > This looks to me like the US Government taking back authority that it > had previously given away (or at least pretended to give away). > > So I feel quite justified in asking whether this is a policy change of > some kind, or what is it? It is a resolictation of an existing contract to perform specific technical tasks. It's not magic, and so far it does not appear to be any policy change (although I think we should wait to see the actual statement of work to be certain of that...) FYI, /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Oct 24 12:55:27 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:55:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <81309079-5233-4A5D-808D-FD963B9C74A7@istaff.org> (message from John Curran on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:13:23 +0000) References: <4EA53755.2080509@ciroap.org> <1EC3E9A5-ED42-4C3D-876E-1D3D8F4BAFEE@istaff.org> <20111024140303.074D015C211@quill.bollow.ch> <5466E2C4-EBBA-4050-938C-BEE91006802F@istaff.org> <20111024152230.4858715C211@quill.bollow.ch> <81309079-5233-4A5D-808D-FD963B9C74A7@istaff.org> Message-ID: <20111024165527.94CD315C211@quill.bollow.ch> John Curran wrote: > It was well known at the time that both IAB and USG made > various claims regarding authority to direct the IANA; > the entire purpose of RFC 2860 was to delineate these > authorities, in particular with respect to identifiers > with policy implications. Has the US government in any way agreed to what is written in RFC 2860? 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 jcurran at istaff.org Mon Oct 24 14:22:35 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:22:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <20111024165527.94CD315C211@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4EA53755.2080509@ciroap.org> <1EC3E9A5-ED42-4C3D-876E-1D3D8F4BAFEE@istaff.org> <20111024140303.074D015C211@quill.bollow.ch> <5466E2C4-EBBA-4050-938C-BEE91006802F@istaff.org> <20111024152230.4858715C211@quill.bollow.ch> <81309079-5233-4A5D-808D-FD963B9C74A7@istaff.org> <20111024165527.94CD315C211@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <231B0457-558E-4FCC-B20D-FD0CDA7A39A7@istaff.org> On Oct 24, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > John Curran wrote: > >> It was well known at the time that both IAB and USG made >> various claims regarding authority to direct the IANA; >> the entire purpose of RFC 2860 was to delineate these >> authorities, in particular with respect to identifiers >> with policy implications. > > Has the US government in any way agreed to what is written > in RFC 2860? - If RFC 2860 impacted ICANN's ability to perform under the IANA Functions contract, then it is clear that the USG could have precluded ICANN from entering it with the IAB or used it as a basis to invalidate the award. - ICANN was not prevented from entering into the MOU with the IAB, and furthermore I believe that the IAB's decision to work with ICANN for these technical tasks was viewed with some degree of relief by everyone involved in ICANN's early formative period. I know that the multiple interacting agreements can be somewhat confusing at first, but they really do exist. One pleasant side effect of this fact is that all of the parties need to work with each other in order to build consensus before taking action. FYI, /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Oct 24 14:59:00 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:59:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <231B0457-558E-4FCC-B20D-FD0CDA7A39A7@istaff.org> (message from John Curran on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:22:35 +0000) References: <4EA53755.2080509@ciroap.org> <1EC3E9A5-ED42-4C3D-876E-1D3D8F4BAFEE@istaff.org> <20111024140303.074D015C211@quill.bollow.ch> <5466E2C4-EBBA-4050-938C-BEE91006802F@istaff.org> <20111024152230.4858715C211@quill.bollow.ch> <81309079-5233-4A5D-808D-FD963B9C74A7@istaff.org> <20111024165527.94CD315C211@quill.bollow.ch> <231B0457-558E-4FCC-B20D-FD0CDA7A39A7@istaff.org> Message-ID: <20111024185900.A735215C211@quill.bollow.ch> John Curran wrote: > I know that the multiple interacting agreements can be somewhat > confusing at first, but they really do exist. My main source of confusion, what caused me to think that perhaps the US government is trying to take some authority back that it had previously given away (I don't think this anymore) was that I have read enough RFCs that in my mind the name "IANA" is very strongly associated with what RFC 2860 is about, while the US Government's concerns are probably mainly about the DNS root zone (a topic that is explicitly excluded in RFC 2860). I was quite aware that the US government had always wanted to retain some control about that, I was just associating other topics with the name "IANA". > One pleasant side effect of this fact is that all of the parties > need to work with each other in order to build consensus before > taking action. Good point! So the practical path towards a potential transfer of the IANA function to another entity would presumably involve both the US government and IAB agreeing about the new entity that it is suitable. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Oct 24 15:07:20 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 06:07:20 +1100 Subject: [governance] Internet origin (was: IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, to answer your question, although I note the discussion has moved on - I do not believe there is a satisfactory single answer, and I think Daniel¹s and Bertrand¹s inputs give reasons why this is so. We are dealing with a range of global activities all of which contributed to what we now know as the Internet. If I may quote from a recent private email from Charley Kline, who is widely credited as being the first person to send a message on the Arpanet: ³ the reality is that no single person or even small group of people created the Internet. We can debate who made the major contributions to concepts, implementation, funding, etc.² And that¹s a much wider story than we can account for here,,,(and a pretty interesting one as well!) Ian From: John Curran Reply-To: , John Curran Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:46:42 +0000 To: Ian Peter Cc: Subject: Re: [governance] Internet origin (was: IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4) On Oct 24, 2011, at 9:05 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > The Internet was invented simultaneously in several countries as a cooperative > effort ... . The sole invention of the Internet in the Arpanet computer time > sharing experiments sponsored by the US Government is a convenient myth ­ > Louis Pouzin¹s work in France, Donald Davies¹ work in UK, the private > enterprise work conducted by John Schoch and others at Parc Xerox Labs, all of > these have equally credible claims to the origins of the Internet. There are a > few other more indirect claims as well which various historians are now > beginning to write up. I have an out of date paper on this at > http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/origins.html which I > hope to revise one day as there are many omissions there. Ian - By your four criteria outlined in the paper (connection between networks, involving computers, involving humans communicating with each other, and an actual event), could you please indicate what event you feel meets these criteria and therefore qualifies as the "Invention of the Internet? You outlined how several do not qualify by these criteria, but do not identify any event which does. Thanks, /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Oct 24 15:16:50 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 06:16:50 +1100 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 - more history In-Reply-To: <81309079-5233-4A5D-808D-FD963B9C74A7@istaff.org> Message-ID: Perhaps in the context of this discussion it is worth looking at how ICANN evolved from the work on Jon Postel, how Postel at one stage favoured an ITU solution, and how the USG reacted to this. What is below combines a little of my writings with a large input from Wolfgang Kleinwachter. I would urge you to read this, as it outlines the initial involvement of many players still involved in internet governance debates. His (Postel²s)  first idea was to use the ³Internet Society² (ISOC), established in 1992, as an umbrella organization. In 1994 he proposed adding 150 new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) to the existing Domain Name System consisting of seven gTLDs[7]  and 243 ccTLDs in 1994. Postel¹s initiative was not co-ordinated with the US Department of Commerce. Network Solutions Inc. (NSI), a private company based in Herndon/Virginia which managed .com, .net, and .org as well as the A Root Server, was rather angry about such an initiative. In 1992 NSI had been given a contract by the DOC to be the sole domain name registrar for the three gTLDs .com, .net and .org. Based on such a monopoly position NSI saw in the emerging domain name market a grandiose new business opportunity. Consequently, NSI opposed the Postel plan to introduce 150 competitive gTLDs at this early stage in the development of a global domain name market. NSI lobbied the US Congress and the DOC, which finally intervened with Postel¹s plan and stopped the handover of the DNS management to ISOC and the introduction of 150 new gTLDs.   Postel¹s frustration about this governmental intervention prompted him to look for other options. He approached the Geneva based International Telecommunication Union (ITU)ŠŠ Postel¹s idea was to create a new form of public-private partnership for Internet Governance by bringing technical organizations, private sector institutions and intergovernmental organizations together, launching a bottom-up policy development process and creating a new form of oversight body for the management of some of the key Internet resources. Postel pushed for the establishment of an ³Interim Ad Hoc Committee² (IAHC) which was formed in summer 1996².   The members of the IAHC were ISOC and Postel¹s IANA, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the International Trademark Association (INTA), the ITU and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).  In 1997 they signed an MOU proposing a new Geneva based structure.   The US Government was unhappy about this, and within a few weeks began a process to ensure that this plan did not eventuate. Under the Clinton administration, they began a process to establish an alternative mechanism for DNS management, and its successive Green Paper and White Paper outlined a new organization.   Again quoting Kleinwachter,   ³ The European Union supported in principle the idea of privatizing the DNS. But it criticized the US centric approach of the Green Paper. In a rather critical comment about the Green Paper the European Commission wrote: ³The European Union and its Member States would wish to emphasize our concern that the future management of the Internet should reflect the fact that it is already a global communication medium and the subject of valid international interests.   Ira Magaziner, US President Clinton¹s Internet adviser and the main architect of what later became ICANN, replied in a hearing before the US Congress to the European criticism: ³The purpose of the Commerce Department proposal is to improve the technical management of the DNS only. The Green Paper does not propose a monolithic Internet Governance system. Frankly we doubt that the Internet should be governed by a single body or plan.²   Jon Postel again changed his plans and took active part in the debate which led to a ³White Paper², published in June 1998 by the US Department of Commerce.² [ii]   The US Government prevailed, and thus ICANN was born.- with a MOU with the US Government Department of Commerce which included in part ³ICANN will perform other IANA functions as needed upon request of DOC². Thus ICANN became a corporation under US law, with a contract to operate from the US government, despite concerns of many stakeholders.   Jon  Postel unfortunately died  in 1998,  just a dew days before ICANN was formally established, > From: John Curran > Reply-To: , John Curran > Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:13:23 +0000 > To: Norbert Bollow > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding > on November 4 > > On Oct 24, 2011, at 3:22 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> According to RFC 2850 (published in the year 2000), the ICANN's IANA >> department is acting "as IANA on behalf of the IETF", and its >> appointment to this role was approved by IAB. > > Specifically, the IAB believes that it has the ability to > direct the IANA's range of action, as specifically stated > in their second IANA NOI response, which notes "... IANA's > actions are constrained by the technical boundary conditions > as set by the IETF." > >> I understand this as implying that in the year 2000, the US Government >> was not opposed that that perspective on IANA. > > I'm uncertain how the publication of RFC 2850 implies > anything with respect to USG position at the time. It > was well known at the time that both IAB and USG made > various claims regarding authority to direct the IANA; > the entire purpose of RFC 2860 was to delineate these > authorities, in particular with respect to identifiers > with policy implications. > >> Now the US Government apparantly believes to have the authority to >> unilaterally decide who performs the IANA function. > > And this is unchanged from the first IANA contract issuance > by DoC. We can all stare at the announcement until we start > seeing things, but as far I can tell there's a distinct lack > of evidence of any policy change at this time. > >> This looks to me like the US Government taking back authority that it >> had previously given away (or at least pretended to give away). >> >> So I feel quite justified in asking whether this is a policy change of >> some kind, or what is it? > > It is a resolictation of an existing contract to perform specific > technical tasks. It's not magic, and so far it does not appear to > be any policy change (although I think we should wait to see the > actual statement of work to be certain of that...) > > FYI, > /John > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Oct 24 16:29:08 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:29:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <20111024185900.A735215C211@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4EA53755.2080509@ciroap.org> <1EC3E9A5-ED42-4C3D-876E-1D3D8F4BAFEE@istaff.org> <20111024140303.074D015C211@quill.bollow.ch> <5466E2C4-EBBA-4050-938C-BEE91006802F@istaff.org> <20111024152230.4858715C211@quill.bollow.ch> <81309079-5233-4A5D-808D-FD963B9C74A7@istaff.org> <20111024165527.94CD315C211@quill.bollow.ch> <231B0457-558E-4FCC-B20D-FD0CDA7A39A7@istaff.org> <20111024185900.A735215C211@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <0362B467-2AAC-4686-B63E-F00CFE9810E2@istaff.org> On Oct 24, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > John Curran wrote: > >> I know that the multiple interacting agreements can be somewhat >> confusing at first, but they really do exist. > > My main source of confusion, what caused me to think that perhaps > the US government is trying to take some authority back that it > had previously given away (I don't think this anymore) was that I > have read enough RFCs that in my mind the name "IANA" is very > strongly associated with what RFC 2860 is about, while the US > Government's concerns are probably mainly about the DNS root zone > (a topic that is explicitly excluded in RFC 2860). I was quite > aware that the US government had always wanted to retain some > control about that, I was just associating other topics with the > name "IANA". If one uses the term "IANA" to refer to the classic "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" of IAB/IETF/RFCs, and always use the "IANA Functions" as the tasks that ICANN performed under contract for DoC/NTIA, then it becomes slightly less entangled. >> One pleasant side effect of this fact is that all of the parties >> need to work with each other in order to build consensus before >> taking action. > > Good point! So the practical path towards a potential transfer of > the IANA function to another entity would presumably involve both > the US government and IAB agreeing about the new entity that it is > suitable. Actually, it's an interesting exercise left for the reader... Note that USG has two relationships with ICANN: 1) the AoC, which commits DoC to "a multi-stakeholder, private sector led, bottom-up policy development model for DNS technical coordination" and ICANN to be such an organization, and 2) the IANA Functions contract, whereby ICANN provides specific set of technical recording functions under clear NTIA oversight. It is not inevitable under a hypothetical award to a non-ICANN party that ICANN's role in technical policy coordination would change in any manner. What is clear is that the final result of any process which required a change to the root zone file or central address registry would ultimately go to a Contractor team other than the current IANA team at ICANN. The establishment of comparable relationships with the affected parties is uncertain and risky at best (see IANA NOI comments filed by IAB, NRO & ISOC), but that does not mean it couldn't happen with careful preparation and planning. Note that the draft SOW says: "the Contractor, in the performance of its duties, has a need to have close constructive working relationships with all interested and affected parties ... to ensure quality performance of the IANA functions." I expect that is actually somewhat of an understatement of the requirements in this area. FYI, /John (my views alone - feel free to use, forward, or delete as desired. Only free electrons were disturbed in the creation of this email) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From icggov at johnlevine.com Mon Oct 24 18:44:09 2011 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 24 Oct 2011 22:44:09 -0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20111024224409.67532.qmail@joyce.lan> >And why on earth does ICANN or anyone else like the root zone >operators have to follow their instructions anyway? Because the E, G, and H roots are operated by the US Government, and the A, B, D, and J roots are operated by organizations with extensive US Government contracts? Or was this a purely hypothetical question? No amount of blustering will change the fact that the US Government is firmly in charge of the root and will be unless they make the unlikely decision to hand their control over to someone ele. R's, John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Oct 24 19:02:05 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:02:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <20111024224409.67532.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <20111024224409.67532.qmail@joyce.lan> Message-ID: <2C9A0118-4B4E-48FD-8559-6FC6BE13008F@istaff.org> On Oct 24, 2011, at 10:44 PM, John Levine wrote: > > No amount of blustering will change the fact that the US Government is > firmly in charge of the root and will be unless they make the unlikely > decision to hand their control over to someone ele. Our collective job: create a multi-stakeholder, open and transparent bottom-up policy development model for DNS technical coordination which performs so well and is so universally supported that any vestigial USG oversight is clearly redundant and without purpose. Not inconceivable, but we've got quite a distant to cover (in my opinion) /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Oct 24 20:21:26 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:21:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 - more history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13D31F81-C7BE-4B3A-AB8E-723F19DB181C@istaff.org> On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:16 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Perhaps in the context of this discussion it is worth looking at how ICANN > evolved from the work on Jon Postel, how Postel at one stage favoured an ITU > solution, and how the USG reacted to this. What is below combines a little > of my writings with a large input from Wolfgang Kleinwachter. I would urge > you to read this, as it outlines the initial involvement of many players > still involved in internet governance debates. Peter - Yes, I lived through it (and have the scars to prove it...) > Ira Magaziner, US President Clinton’s Internet adviser and the main > architect of what later became ICANN, replied in a hearing before the US > Congress to the European criticism: “The purpose of the Commerce Department > proposal is to improve the technical management of the DNS only. The Green > Paper does not propose a monolithic Internet Governance system. Frankly we > doubt that the Internet should be governed by a single body or plan.” > > Jon Postel again changed his plans and took active part in the debate which > led to a “White Paper”, published in June 1998 by the US Department of > Commerce.” [ii] > n-2010/#_edn2> Indeed. Per the White Paper, the goal was to have "separate, diverse, and robust name and number councils responsible for developing, reviewing, and recommending for the board's approval policy related to matters within each council's competence. Such councils, if developed, should also abide by rules and decision-making processes that are sound, transparent, protect against capture by a self-interested party and provide an open process for the presentation of petitions for consideration." Note the absence of the word "constituency" in the above. Also note also these councils were envisioned to produce fully developed policy to the ICANN Board for approval, i.e. the Board's primary role was oversight; to make sure that coordination happened among its supporting organizations and that any policy was developed by sound and transparent means. This makes for a nice small ICANN, with a boring job of insuring coordination between the Name and NUmber supporting organizations and occasionally approving consensus policy that emerged from them... Alas, we completely departed from original blueprint, when in Singapore the ICANN Board decided that rather than select among initial DNSO proposals received (as called for in its Bylaws), that the Board would instead design the structure of new DNSO based on staff input, and then simply modify the Bylaws to make this possible: The result: instead of having singular DNS Support Organization which would have had to achieve internal consensus in order to recommend policies to the Board, we have an abundance of constituencies all directly vying for the Board's attention to their particular needs. The very concept of having "constituencies" implies people aligned behind particular positions, as opposed to the White Paper's model of a standards setting body whereby individuals and entities are equally "able to participate by expressing a position and its basis, and having that position considered." People ask me: Why is the Address Support Organization (ASO) so quiet? Where is all of the policy development happening? My answer is always the same: the ASO is operating according the original ICANN model as specified by the White Paper and ICANN's bylaws; policy development happens continuously throughout the year in geographically diverse locations with remote participation and open & transparent processes, and it is only the consensus results that the ASO brings forth to the ICANN Board for its consideration. We coordinate with the technical folks in the IETF when we or they have need, and while it is a complete pain that we need to have complete alignment in order to advance policy, you'd be amazed what is does for encouraging actual listening to others positions and really considering their views. /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 24 22:20:15 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:20:15 +1100 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <20111024224409.67532.qmail@joyce.lan> Message-ID: Three possible scenarios at least John - 1. As you say, US Government deciding to hand over control. As you say, fairly unlikely. 2. UN sponsoring at alternative root (which may or may not include some existing operators) and ICANN agreeing to use the new UN root. 3. ICANN sets up a root system, continues all DNS management as normal, and invites UN to control authorisation function currently performed by USG. In short - US only controls the root with the consent of the governed. There is no magic here, only trust - and a surprising inertia in setting up a truly global Internet root zone system. Ian Peter > From: John Levine > Date: 24 Oct 2011 22:44:09 -0000 > To: > Cc: Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding > on November 4 > >> And why on earth does ICANN or anyone else like the root zone >> operators have to follow their instructions anyway? > > Because the E, G, and H roots are operated by the US Government, and > the A, B, D, and J roots are operated by organizations with extensive > US Government contracts? Or was this a purely hypothetical question? > > No amount of blustering will change the fact that the US Government is > firmly in charge of the root and will be unless they make the unlikely > decision to hand their control over to someone ele. > > R's, > John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Oct 25 02:48:54 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 06:48:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 25, 2011, at 2:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > 1. As you say, US Government deciding to hand over control. As you say, fairly unlikely. By "hand over control", what do you mean? Is this to ICANN or another party? /John____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Oct 25 03:20:42 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:20:42 +1100 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Probably either.... > From: John Curran > Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 06:48:54 +0000 > To: Ian Peter > Cc: John Levine , "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > > Subject: Re: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding > on November 4 > > On Oct 25, 2011, at 2:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> 1. As you say, US Government deciding to hand over control. As you say, >> fairly unlikely. > > By "hand over control", what do you mean? Is this to ICANN or another party? > > /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 25 03:49:07 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:49:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 - more history In-Reply-To: <13D31F81-C7BE-4B3A-AB8E-723F19DB181C@istaff.org> References: <13D31F81-C7BE-4B3A-AB8E-723F19DB181C@istaff.org> Message-ID: <9E4776AE-A8E8-4ABE-8371-20670A101245@acm.org> Hi, Reading this on my last day as Chair of one of those 'constituencies', the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group, it reads almost like a dream. After 7 years in the GNSO with its constituency warfare I can't imagine anything nicer than an IETF/ASO like process where individuals argue, discuss and resolve. But then I rub the sleep from eyes and wonder whether the politics of names being such as it is with all its notions of property, sovereignty and the need to protect rights, required the changes made in Singapore becasue things had already move beyond the rational open dialogue stage already at that point. But then I look at the insanity of the GNSO with its diremption into opposing Houses composed of opposing Stakeholder Groups put in direct opposition to each other on Every Issue and wonder how this monster can be tamed. Just my thoughts on beginning another day at ICANN. cheers, avri On 25 Oct 2011, at 00:21, John Curran wrote: > Indeed. Per the White Paper, the goal was to have "separate, diverse, and > robust name and number councils responsible for developing, reviewing, and > recommending for the board's approval policy related to matters within each > council's competence. Such councils, if developed, should also abide by > rules and decision-making processes that are sound, transparent, protect > against capture by a self-interested party and provide an open process > for the presentation of petitions for consideration." > > Note the absence of the word "constituency" in the above. Also note also > these councils were envisioned to produce fully developed policy to the > ICANN Board for approval, i.e. the Board's primary role was oversight; to > make sure that coordination happened among its supporting organizations and > that any policy was developed by sound and transparent means. This makes > for a nice small ICANN, with a boring job of insuring coordination between > the Name and NUmber supporting organizations and occasionally approving > consensus policy that emerged from them... > > Alas, we completely departed from original blueprint, when in Singapore the > ICANN Board decided that rather than select among initial DNSO proposals > received (as called for in its Bylaws), that the Board would instead design > the structure of new DNSO based on staff input, and then simply modify the > Bylaws to make this possible: > > > > > The result: instead of having singular DNS Support Organization which would > have had to achieve internal consensus in order to recommend policies to the > Board, we have an abundance of constituencies all directly vying for the > Board's attention to their particular needs. The very concept of having > "constituencies" implies people aligned behind particular positions, as > opposed to the White Paper's model of a standards setting body whereby > individuals and entities are equally "able to participate by expressing > a position and its basis, and having that position considered." > > People ask me: Why is the Address Support Organization (ASO) so quiet? > Where is all of the policy development happening? My answer is always > the same: the ASO is operating according the original ICANN model as > specified by the White Paper and ICANN's bylaws; policy development > happens continuously throughout the year in geographically diverse > locations with remote participation and open & transparent processes, > and it is only the consensus results that the ASO brings forth to the > ICANN Board for its consideration. We coordinate with the technical > folks in the IETF when we or they have need, and while it is a complete > pain that we need to have complete alignment in order to advance policy, > you'd be amazed what is does for encouraging actual listening to others > positions and really considering their views. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 25 04:19:18 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:19:18 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 - more history References: <13D31F81-C7BE-4B3A-AB8E-723F19DB181C@istaff.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C675@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi is there a way "back into the future" in an ICANN 3.5 with a more decentralized decisions making capacity below the ICANN Board (via the SOs liaised to the ACs) and a more decentralized overview (via the multistakeholder review teams) above the ICANN Board? In this scheme we would be back with a new version of the hour-glass model where the ICANN Board is not more than the interlocutor (and coordinator) between bottom uop (open and transparent) policy development and its review and oversight. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von John Curran Gesendet: Di 25.10.2011 02:21 An: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 - more history On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:16 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Perhaps in the context of this discussion it is worth looking at how ICANN > evolved from the work on Jon Postel, how Postel at one stage favoured an ITU > solution, and how the USG reacted to this. What is below combines a little > of my writings with a large input from Wolfgang Kleinwachter. I would urge > you to read this, as it outlines the initial involvement of many players > still involved in internet governance debates. Peter - Yes, I lived through it (and have the scars to prove it...) > Ira Magaziner, US President Clinton's Internet adviser and the main > architect of what later became ICANN, replied in a hearing before the US > Congress to the European criticism: "The purpose of the Commerce Department > proposal is to improve the technical management of the DNS only. The Green > Paper does not propose a monolithic Internet Governance system. Frankly we > doubt that the Internet should be governed by a single body or plan." > > Jon Postel again changed his plans and took active part in the debate which > led to a "White Paper", published in June 1998 by the US Department of > Commerce." [ii] > n-2010/#_edn2> Indeed. Per the White Paper, the goal was to have "separate, diverse, and robust name and number councils responsible for developing, reviewing, and recommending for the board's approval policy related to matters within each council's competence. Such councils, if developed, should also abide by rules and decision-making processes that are sound, transparent, protect against capture by a self-interested party and provide an open process for the presentation of petitions for consideration." Note the absence of the word "constituency" in the above. Also note also these councils were envisioned to produce fully developed policy to the ICANN Board for approval, i.e. the Board's primary role was oversight; to make sure that coordination happened among its supporting organizations and that any policy was developed by sound and transparent means. This makes for a nice small ICANN, with a boring job of insuring coordination between the Name and NUmber supporting organizations and occasionally approving consensus policy that emerged from them... Alas, we completely departed from original blueprint, when in Singapore the ICANN Board decided that rather than select among initial DNSO proposals received (as called for in its Bylaws), that the Board would instead design the structure of new DNSO based on staff input, and then simply modify the Bylaws to make this possible: The result: instead of having singular DNS Support Organization which would have had to achieve internal consensus in order to recommend policies to the Board, we have an abundance of constituencies all directly vying for the Board's attention to their particular needs. The very concept of having "constituencies" implies people aligned behind particular positions, as opposed to the White Paper's model of a standards setting body whereby individuals and entities are equally "able to participate by expressing a position and its basis, and having that position considered." People ask me: Why is the Address Support Organization (ASO) so quiet? Where is all of the policy development happening? My answer is always the same: the ASO is operating according the original ICANN model as specified by the White Paper and ICANN's bylaws; policy development happens continuously throughout the year in geographically diverse locations with remote participation and open & transparent processes, and it is only the consensus results that the ASO brings forth to the ICANN Board for its consideration. We coordinate with the technical folks in the IETF when we or they have need, and while it is a complete pain that we need to have complete alignment in order to advance policy, you'd be amazed what is does for encouraging actual listening to others positions and really considering their views. /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 25 05:10:43 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:10:43 +1300 Subject: [governance] ICANN 42 [Meeting between ICANN Board and ALAC] Message-ID: Dear All, Please visit the* ICANN 42* website and go to Meetings to participate and observe the ICANN Board and At Large Advisory Committee meeting which is live. The meeting is public and there are transcripts available in real time. It is also useful to note that ICANN has a section called Global Partnerships that deals with public interface and is something we can explore in the future. Kind Regards -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Oct 25 07:00:12 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:00:12 +0800 Subject: [governance] Survey on "Public interest representation in the information society" closes in 1 week Message-ID: <4EA696BC.50602@ciroap.org> This is just a reminder that for those who haven't already responded, you have until 31 October to contribute your perspectives to the survey "Public interest representation in the information society" at http://survey.idgovmap.org/index.php?sid=48277. This survey is one of the inputs towards the development of a dynamic map of Internet Governance by the Dynamic Working Coalition for Internet Governance Mapping (a multi-stakeholder effort supported by the IGC, Consumers International and others). The particular focus of this survey is on the barriers that face civil society groups and individuals wishing to participate in global and regional institutions of governance in the information society. So we hope that you will take the time to participate and share your experiences. Thanks! -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2370 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Oct 25 07:20:38 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:20:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Probably either.... > >> On Oct 25, 2011, at 2:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> 1. As you say, US Government deciding to hand over control. As you say, >>> fairly unlikely. >> >> By "hand over control", what do you mean? Is this to ICANN or another party? It's not inconceivable to phase out the unique USG role. If I had to make this happen, one possible approach would be the following: 1) Seek common support among the community that the scope of the IANA Functions contract should not increase at at any time. (Basic principle is to draw a boundary around the situation so it does not grow while one is working on long-term solution) 2) Work to get multiple governments to enter into Affirmation of Commitments with ICANN. Ensure that the reviews required by such agreements are in common with the periodic reviews already being performed. 3) Presuming ICANN award of the IANA Function resolictation, make use of the initial three year performance period to transition the IANA function of protocol registration from being directed by the IANA function contract to instead being performed by an independent contract between IAB(ISOC) and ICANN. Make clear that this task should be omitted in any renewal terms. While IAB could easily have any organization do this task, they should voluntarily agree to have ICANN perform it, and in turn agree to utilize ICANN for technical coordination of any assignments which have implications to the DNS or address communities (Yes, for those familiar with history, this is recreating the "PSO") 4) Repeating the principle, the Regional Internet Registries should formalize their relationship with ICANN via contract, and then with the IAB's endorsement, should make clear that the task of maintaining the IANA number registry of does not need to be included in the IANA Function second renewal period as it is already being provided by ICANN to the community. 5) The last step is slightly challenging. Having worked over the previous 5 years to make sure that the Domain Name portion of ICANN has a distinct identity which includes all parties with views on Domain Name policy, this Domain Name Policy group reaches an agreement with the IAB that it will contract with ICANN for root zone operation, and then enters an agreement for ICANN to do so. It also agrees in turn to utilize ICANN for technical coordination of any DNS matters which may have implications to the address or Internet protocol communities. Once this contract has been entered, ICANN and its constituent components for technical coordination (IAB, RIRs, Domain Name Policy group) make clear that no renewal of the IANA Functions contract is required at all, and those governments supporting this "refreshed" ICANN model would need to make clear that it must be allowed to stand on its own. Folks will note that I have put the IAB(/IETF/ISOC) in a somewhat unique role of having to concur with any changes to the system. This is not because I believe that IAB has unilateral authority in these matters, but do believe that the IAB (as the creator of these Internet identifier spaces via its protocol work) when combined with inclusive multistakeholder policy development organizations using open & transparent processes actually do constitute valid consensus authorities if also operating under the ongoing oversight as provided by ICANN (including its GAC and AoC processes.) FYI, /John p.s. Oh yes, disclaimer time: the above thoughts are solely my own private views. They most certainly do not represent any organization whatsoever. May cause drowsiness. Do not operate heavy machinery while reading this email. Past Internet performance is no guide to future performance. Use caution: email contents may be very hot. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 25 07:43:37 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:43:37 +0300 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:20 PM, John Curran wrote: >      caution: email contents may be very hot. :-) I understand that it's also very hot in Dakar! -- 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 daniel at digsys.bg Tue Oct 25 11:39:52 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:39:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 25, 2011, at 11:20 , John Curran wrote: > > It's not inconceivable to phase out the unique USG role. If I had > to make this happen, one possible approach would be the following: > All this is fine and probably doable, but in my opinion, not with the current ICANN (*). Since we don't have any other ICANN-like structure, what follows it is currently not doable at all. Daniel (*) While creating ICANN was great idea and although it still performs some very useful tasks (including among other things forcing people to visit new places), truth is, it does not behave. The board does what they want. The staff does what they want. Various working groups etc produce absurd results (even if their members are fine folk, with.. different views of the result. Someone apparently orchestrates all this chaos. Unfortunately, ICANN is utterly lacking transparency and accountability. If we need to get USG out of the picture, we need to fix ICANN first. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Oct 25 12:27:20 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:27:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > All this is fine and probably doable, but in my opinion, not with the current ICANN (*). Since we don't have any other ICANN-like structure, what follows it is currently not doable at all. > ... > If we need to get USG out of the picture, we need to fix ICANN first. Is fixing ICANN doable over the next six or seven years? /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 12:43:32 2011 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:43:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: <4EA39E3D.8040202@cis-india.org> <20111023113308.GA13159@sources.org> Message-ID: Lous Pouzin asked " What international agreement allows the USG to make unilateral decisions on the management of a common good?" Reply by the undersigned on June 03, 1997 "We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next century" Signed:. Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz Louis Pouzin wrote On 10/23/11, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > What international agreement allows the USG to make unilateral decisions on > the management of a common good ? > > - - - > > On Oct 23, 2011, at 11:33 , Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> >> > >> > That's much worse: >> > >> >> The Contractor shall perform the primary IANA functions of the >> >> Contract in the United States and possess and maintain, throughout >> >> the performance of this Contract, a physical address within the >> >> United States. The Contractor must be able to demonstrate that all >> >> primary operations and systems will remain within the Unites States >> >> (including the District of Columbia). The Government reserves the >> >> right to inspect the premises, systems, and processes of all >> >> security and operational components used for the performance of all >> >> Contract requirements and obligations. >> > >> > So, the future IANA will not even be able to, like ICANN, _pretend_ it >> > is a bit internationalized. >> > - - - > >> >> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 17:03, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> > > >> It does not need to pretend such things. After all this is a contract the >> USG will sign with whomever they chose and I guess by going trough their >> "standard" procurement procedures, they simply have no other choice. >> >> What worries me is the reference to District of Columbia… perhaps that >> wording is required in order for certain US law to apply? >> >> Daniel > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant to Tha President ASAFE Telephone:237 33 01 30 13 P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 13:46:54 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:46:54 -0600 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 - more history In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C675@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <13D31F81-C7BE-4B3A-AB8E-723F19DB181C@istaff.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C675@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear All, Thank you for the enlightment. Very informative. Miguel Alcaine 2011/10/25 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Hi > > is there a way "back into the future" in an ICANN 3.5 with a more > decentralized decisions making capacity below the ICANN Board (via the SOs > liaised to the ACs) and a more decentralized overview (via the > multistakeholder review teams) above the ICANN Board? In this scheme we > would be back with a new version of the hour-glass model where the ICANN > Board is not more than the interlocutor (and coordinator) between bottom uop > (open and transparent) policy development and its review and oversight. > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von John Curran > Gesendet: Di 25.10.2011 02:21 > An: Ian Peter > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive > bidding on November 4 - more history > > > > On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:16 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Perhaps in the context of this discussion it is worth looking at how > ICANN > > evolved from the work on Jon Postel, how Postel at one stage favoured an > ITU > > solution, and how the USG reacted to this. What is below combines a > little > > of my writings with a large input from Wolfgang Kleinwachter. I would > urge > > you to read this, as it outlines the initial involvement of many players > > still involved in internet governance debates. > > Peter - > > Yes, I lived through it (and have the scars to prove it...) > > > Ira Magaziner, US President Clinton's Internet adviser and the main > > architect of what later became ICANN, replied in a hearing before the US > > Congress to the European criticism: "The purpose of the Commerce > Department > > proposal is to improve the technical management of the DNS only. The > Green > > Paper does not propose a monolithic Internet Governance system. Frankly > we > > doubt that the Internet should be governed by a single body or plan." > > > > Jon Postel again changed his plans and took active part in the debate > which > > led to a "White Paper", published in June 1998 by the US Department of > > Commerce." [ii] > > < > http://ianpeter.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/internet-governance-history-writte > > n-2010/#_edn2> > > Indeed. Per the White Paper, the goal was to have "separate, diverse, and > robust name and number councils responsible for developing, reviewing, and > recommending for the board's approval policy related to matters within each > council's competence. Such councils, if developed, should also abide by > rules and decision-making processes that are sound, transparent, protect > against capture by a self-interested party and provide an open process > for the presentation of petitions for consideration." > > Note the absence of the word "constituency" in the above. Also note also > these councils were envisioned to produce fully developed policy to the > ICANN Board for approval, i.e. the Board's primary role was oversight; to > make sure that coordination happened among its supporting organizations and > that any policy was developed by sound and transparent means. This makes > for a nice small ICANN, with a boring job of insuring coordination between > the Name and NUmber supporting organizations and occasionally approving > consensus policy that emerged from them... > > Alas, we completely departed from original blueprint, when in Singapore the > ICANN Board decided that rather than select among initial DNSO proposals > received (as called for in its Bylaws), that the Board would instead design > the structure of new DNSO based on staff input, and then simply modify the > Bylaws to make this possible: > > > > > The result: instead of having singular DNS Support Organization which would > have had to achieve internal consensus in order to recommend policies to > the > Board, we have an abundance of constituencies all directly vying for the > Board's attention to their particular needs. The very concept of having > "constituencies" implies people aligned behind particular positions, as > opposed to the White Paper's model of a standards setting body whereby > individuals and entities are equally "able to participate by expressing > a position and its basis, and having that position considered." > > People ask me: Why is the Address Support Organization (ASO) so quiet? > Where is all of the policy development happening? My answer is always > the same: the ASO is operating according the original ICANN model as > specified by the White Paper and ICANN's bylaws; policy development > happens continuously throughout the year in geographically diverse > locations with remote participation and open & transparent processes, > and it is only the consensus results that the ASO brings forth to the > ICANN Board for its consideration. We coordinate with the technical > folks in the IETF when we or they have need, and while it is a complete > pain that we need to have complete alignment in order to advance policy, > you'd be amazed what is does for encouraging actual listening to others > positions and really considering their views. > > /John > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Tue Oct 25 14:22:23 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:22:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9D147F8F-4078-4D3E-85EA-415622DCC9ED@digsys.bg> On Oct 25, 2011, at 16:27 , John Curran wrote: > On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > >> If we need to get USG out of the picture, we need to fix ICANN first. > > Is fixing ICANN doable over the next six or seven years? I think yes, but will not please many. (then, after all those many are just a minority even within ICANN) But so what if I think so? :) Daniel____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Oct 25 14:39:40 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:39:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <9D147F8F-4078-4D3E-85EA-415622DCC9ED@digsys.bg> References: <9D147F8F-4078-4D3E-85EA-415622DCC9ED@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4666FBAD-3C27-4738-8B6F-4B2B7F2EDEAA@istaff.org> On Oct 25, 2011, at 6:22 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > But so what if I think so? :) "Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Oct 25 15:30:20 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 06:30:20 +1100 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I liked your blueprint John, its a good path forward. Would that some action would occur in this direction. Re Daniel's problem that ICANN needs to be fixed first - Mahatma Ghandi famously said words to the British along the lines of "we would rather have our own poor government than your very good government". I think that applies here, and indeed getting rid of the USG contract might just be a catalyst for some ICANN improvements and better levels of involvement. Ian Peter > From: John Curran > Reply-To: , John Curran > Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:27:20 +0000 > To: Daniel Kalchev > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding > on November 4 > > On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > >> All this is fine and probably doable, but in my opinion, not with the current >> ICANN (*). Since we don't have any other ICANN-like structure, what follows >> it is currently not doable at all. >> ... >> If we need to get USG out of the picture, we need to fix ICANN first. > > Is fixing ICANN doable over the next six or seven years? > /John > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Oct 25 15:56:57 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:56:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:30 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > I liked your blueprint John, its a good path forward. Would that some action > would occur in this direction. It's one possibility, and I'm certain others could improve upon it. (I just wanted to provide a potential path forward against fatalism) :-) /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 25 17:13:30 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:13:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: AccessNow [mailto:info at accessnow.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 9:33 AM To: Michael Gurstein Subject: Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference Dear Friends, Over the next two days, Access, sponsored by Google, Facebook, Twitter, Mozilla, Yahoo!, Skype, AT&T among other, will be hosting the Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference. The Conference is an outcome-oriented event, centered on private roundtables and public sessions, that will bring information and communications technology (ICT) entrepreneurs, executives, and engineers together with policy analysts, human rights specialists and charitable organizations in the field. One of the SVHRC main goals is to exam and explore how the human rights and high tech sectors can better plan for and manage the human rights implications of new technologies. Many outstanding speakers from the most different industries, countries and backgrounds will be speaking at the event. The debates are also going to be enrished by the massive presence of activistists, students, and representatives from civil society, private company and governments. A live stream of all the conference plenary sessions and panels, supported by Portal A and YouTube via CitizenTube can be found on RightsCon.org as well as AccessNow.org . Make sure to share it with your friends and colleagues and join us in this amazing event! Best, The Access Team _____ To unsubscribe, go to: http://www.accessnow.org/unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From KovenRonald at aol.com Tue Oct 25 18:10:40 2011 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:10:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 Message-ID: <4f89d.308056c1.3bd88de0@aol.com> In a message dated 10/25/11 9:31:20 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com writes: > Mahatma Ghandi > famously said words to the British along the lines of "we would rather > have > our own poor government than your very good government". I think that > applies here, and indeed getting rid of the USG contract might just be a > catalyst for some ICANN improvements and better levels of involvement. > In other words.you'd rather let China and Russia dictate "our own poor government" than continue to put up with "very good government" by the US ? Really ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Oct 25 18:19:07 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:19:07 -0200 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <4f89d.308056c1.3bd88de0@aol.com> References: <4f89d.308056c1.3bd88de0@aol.com> Message-ID: <4EA735DB.70708@cafonso.ca> Ah, black-and-white thinking again... :( --c.a. On 10/25/2011 08:10 PM, KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 10/25/11 9:31:20 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com writes: > > >> Mahatma Ghandi >> famously said words to the British along the lines of "we would rather >> have >> our own poor government than your very good government". I think that >> applies here, and indeed getting rid of the USG contract might just be a >> catalyst for some ICANN improvements and better levels of involvement. >> > > In other words.you'd rather let China and Russia dictate "our own poor > government" than continue to put up with "very good government" by the US ? > Really ? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Oct 25 18:58:39 2011 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 00:58:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: <4EA39E3D.8040202@cis-india.org> <20111023113308.GA13159@sources.org> Message-ID: Superb oxymoron. I like. - - - On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 18:43, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > Louis Pouzin asked > > " What international agreement allows the USG to make unilateral decisions > on the management of a common good?" > - - - > > Reply by the undersigned on June 03, 1997 > > "We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving > and extending an international order friendly to our security, our > prosperity, and our principles. > Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be > fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on > the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our > greatness in the next century" > > Signed:. > Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick > Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes > Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle > Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan > Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald > Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz > > - - - > > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe > Journalist-OutCome Mapper > Special Assistant to Tha President > ASAFE > Telephone:237 33 01 30 13 > P.O.Box 5213 > Douala-Cameroon > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Oct 25 20:31:58 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:31:58 +1100 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <4f89d.308056c1.3bd88de0@aol.com> Message-ID: Hi Ronald, At my last count there were over 140 countries, and I would expect them all to have the opportunity to be involved. That¹s why involving the UN makes a lot of sense. From: Reply-To: , Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:10:40 -0400 (EDT) To: Ian Peter , , , Subject: Re: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In a message dated 10/25/11 9:31:20 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com writes: Mahatma Ghandi famously said words to the British along the lines of "we would rather have our own poor government than your very good government". I think that applies here, and indeed getting rid of the USG contract might just be a catalyst for some ICANN improvements and better levels of involvement. In other words.you'd rather let China and Russia dictate "our own poor government" than continue to put up with "very good government" by the US ? Really ? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Oct 25 21:21:10 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 01:21:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A53923E-9C3A-43CF-9712-4FBCAA505C73@istaff.org> On Oct 26, 2011, at 12:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > At my last count there were over 140 countries, and I would expect them all to have the opportunity to be involved. That’s why involving the UN makes a lot of sense. Ability to reach many countries is certainly important, but isn't sufficient on its own (if it were, one might just as easily choose the International Olympic Committee...) Presumably, there are criteria related to being able to nurture multi-stakeholder open and transparent policy coordination which play some factor in this as well. I am not in position to assess where the UN is with respect to these issues, but believe it would be important to understand such as part of considering sensible next steps. /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pwilson at apnic.net Tue Oct 25 22:13:09 2011 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:13:09 +1000 Subject: [governance] I think we debated this ~7 years ago, but it seems to have come up again... In-Reply-To: References: <4EA2E5EE.2040300@cis-india.org> <4EA312C8.9040602@cafonso.ca> <4EA3E4BB.1090206@cafonso.ca> <4EA50FC4.5080801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <29E2AE58-32EA-4654-BB56-34C5FB6ACE45@apnic.net> Dear friends, I can clarify a few questions which have been raised in this discussion about national registries and IP address allocations... 1. The National Internet Registry (NIR) structure is well-established within the APNIC system, and new NIRs can be accepted under a set of documented criteria which have been established by the community. 2. An Indian NIR is in formation under the auspices of NIXI, the National Internet eXchange of India (under the Indian Department of Information Technology, DIT), which has received in-principle approval from APNIC. Operational readiness is under development and hopefully will be achieved soon. 3. Under the APNIC policies (decided by the APNIC community) an NIR does not have exclusivity within its country or economy. Both APNIC and the NIR agree to uphold the free choice of network operators as to their preferred source of address resources, and naturally, NIXI has agreed to abide by this policy. 4. Establishment of an NIR does not imply independence of address management policies, as all NIRs agree to abide by the regional policies established by the APNIC community. 5. Establishment of an NIR also does not imply that a national address allocation exists or can be made. On the contrary, address blocks allocated by an NIR are taken from the regional address pool which is held by APNIC. 6. There is currently a policy proposal in the APNIC community for IPv6 address allocations to be made to individual countries, which has been submitted by the Indian Department of Telecommunications (DoT). However this is entirely independent from the process and the issues of NIR formation, and is likely to be an ongoing discussion. More information is available from http://www.apnic.net, here: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-100 I hope this is useful. Regards, ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 On 24/10/2011, at 11:30 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Dear Daniel Kalchev, > > Cost would be a lesser consideration for the ISPs and bulk IP users in a situation where an imaginary NIR in an imaginary country operates with policies that makes it difficult for some users to obtain IP addresses - a situation wherein a class of users are denied or delayed the allocation of IP addresses for reasons other than monetary reasons. > > The idea of alternate sources for IP addresses is to ensure that IP address allocation does not get blocked by for any reason for those users who have a need for IP addresses. In actual practice, the NIR may operate so well with such fair practices that most of the bulk users and ISPs wouldn't have any reason to choose the alternate source ( RIR ). > > About the NIR's participation in the RIR's costs, I am sure that the NIRs may agree on some form of NIR fee payable to the RIRs which would indeed translate to a minuscule cost per IP address, which could be balanced by charging a minimal fee for the addresses allotted. > > Even with the provision to allow (without any bottlenecks) allocations direct by the RIRs, it is important to ensure that the NIRs will be on a truly multi-stakeholder model, that too with symbolic Government participation and non-ISP business participation. > > ( I meant including non-ISP participation, i.e. business participation by way of ISPs + non-ISPs ) > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > On Oct 24, 2011, at 08:00 , Sivasubramanian M wrote: > >> However, the proposed NIR may still have to leave the option to obtain IP address blocks direct from RIRs with complete freedom for the ISPs to do so. > > One possible reason to introduce NIR would be to reduce costs to local parties, such as ISPs and large IP address space users. However, this also means that this will disrupt the business model of the RIRs and therefore will require significant participation on part of the NIR in the RIR costs. This scheme assumes the costs for the local users are significantly lower when going via the NIR. > > When you have both direct and via NIR allocations from the RIR, the question may arise: who will bear the costs of the NIR existence. If you can sort that out then without doubt such scheme may be useful. The RIR will have to agree too… > > Daniel > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From KovenRonald at aol.com Wed Oct 26 06:23:34 2011 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 06:23:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 Message-ID: <455a.28063775.3bd939a5@aol.com> In a message dated 10/26/11 2:32:17 AM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com writes: > Hi Ronald, > > At my last count there were over 140 countries, and I would expect them > all to have the opportunity to be involved. That’s why involving the UN makes > a lot of sense. > Dear Ian -- There are actually more than 190 member governments of the UN now, and well over half of them favor or have put into practice I'net controls that amount to censorship. The likeliest UN agency to administer the I'net, and the one that has shon that it most ardently seeks that, is the ITU, which also has a history of opposing multistakeholderism. Below is a speech by the US official most involved in trying to preserve I'net freedom. Could you imagine officials from the majority of UN member states making similar statements ? And it's not just a matter of ringing rhetoric. USG practice has been overwhelmingly along the same lines. In the few instances where it has shown itself to be tempted to act otherwise, as over the WikiLeaks episode, it has pulled back and apparently thought better of it when confronted with protests over such potential inconsistencies pointing toward restrictionism. Bests, Rony Koven Remarks on Internet Freedom and Responsibility Michael H. Posner Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference San Francisco, CA October 25, 2011 Thank you very much for inviting me. I’d like to thank Access for organizing this conference and especially Brett Solomon, who has worked so hard to make it a hub for thoughtful exchange and discussion. And I’d like to thank the many other friends here today who have helped map out how socially responsible companies can respect people’s fundamental freedoms online. Today we face a series of challenges at the intersection of human rights, connective technologies, business and government. It’s a busy intersection and a lot of people want to put up traffic lights. In the next few minutes I want to help frame the challenges we face, and offer practical suggestions on the role of companies and how we can best work together to preserve Internet freedom. First, a word about the challenges. Almost every day, we see new examples of the power of connection technologies – the transformative power, and the disruptive power. Entire industries have been upended, starting with Old Media. In a single decade, new technologies have decimated traditional newsrooms and killed their business model, but given rise to literally millions of citizen bloggers and citizen filmmakers and a new global journalism outlet called You Tube. All in one decade. Today we have tens of thousands of people armed with cell-phone cameras and video, documenting what is happening on the streets of the Middle East. Some can upload it within minutes. Others have to smuggle it out in places like Syria. But the truth is getting out. And yet, these amazing technologies haven’t made it any safer to do reporting in these hard places – or for human rights activists to talk to one another. The Arab spring brought home the power of the Internet to governments far beyond the Middle East, and the result has been more censorship, more surveillance and more restrictions. Repressive governments used to set up firewalls at Internet Exchange Points to block external content they disliked. Now they’re using bots to delete po sts and block emails in something approaching real time. They’re using surreptitious deep-packet inspection and sophisticated key-logger software to track what their citizens do online. They are exerting overbroad state control over content, over users, and over companies. And they’re trying to change national and international legal standards to legitimize it all. Let me give you one example. Last month in New York the governments of China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan came to the UN to suggest the need for an “International Code of Conduct for Information Security.” This would shift cyberspace away from being a multi-stakeholder, people-driven model – to a system dominated by centralized government control. Not a good idea. An online world where more and more countries begin policing content for ideological correctness – whether they call it a Halal Internet or a hate-free Internet – would extinguish the promise of technology to drive global understanding and the free exchange of information, ideas, and innovation. So my first message to you is that the Internet space – which has seemed so open and free – could become less so. We are up against an ever more sophisticated range of technical, legal, and political challenges to freedom in cyberspace. Secretary Clinton has called the Internet the town square of the 21st Century. The Obama administration has staked out a principled stand on Internet freedom, arguing that the fundamental freedoms apply online just as they do offline. That includes the right to freedom of expression, assembly and association. I also want to say a word about the protection of intellectual property, which is sometimes seen as in conflict with Internet freedom. Even though it may be more difficult to enforce these rights in the Digital Age, as authors, artists and inventors are discovering, they are protected by international law. You don’t have the right to break into a movie theater and steal the film reels and you don’t have the right to steal movies online, either. Before I joined the Obama administration, I spent most of my career in the NGO world, where for years I argued – you might say self-servingly – that progress on human rights is rarely generated by governments alone. Now from my perch inside government, it is even clearer to me that government can’t do it alone – and shouldn’t. To advance these fundamental freedoms, we need the help of citizens, corporations and global civil society for what is likely to be a long, tough struggle with regimes that do not share our values or our views on the merits of openness. And I particularly want to call attention to the role of companies, because today corporations have more global influence than ever. If Wal-Mart were a country, its annual revenues would rank it as the 23rd largest economy in the world -- ahead of Norway and Venezuela. That’s comparing annual revenues vs. GDP. Hewlett-Packard is only 11th on the Fortune 500, but its 2010 revenues would rank it ahead of Vietnam and Morocco. So the private sector is more powerful than ever. But it’s also less private than ever. Today, we’re all living in a fishbowl. Any one of us may face public scrutiny for any decision we make. And now it’s instant scrutiny in real time. Most of us are still learning the new rules for life on webcam. It used to be that companies only faced this kind of scrutiny in a crisis— when the Labor Department exposed sweatshops or when violence erupted along a pipeline. The strategy was crisis-mitigation and damage control, without a lot of attention to the underlying issues. Today, more and more companies realize they can’t wait for the crisis to consider human rights. If you’re living in a fishbowl, on webcam, you have to do the right thing 24/7. And companies find it is often more effective to work together—even with their toughest competitors—as well as with governments like ours, and with NGOs. Through these cooperative efforts, they are addressing the underlying issues before they find themselves in the crosshairs of controversy. Let me give you a few examples. In the extractive industries, Exxon, Chevron, BP, Shell and 15 other major oil and mining giants, who do business in some of the toughest places on earth, met in Ottawa last month. They joined seven governments and 10 NGOs in a collaborative effort that aims to minimize the risk of human rights abuses by security forces in conflict areas, which is where the natural resources often are. In the private security industry, Xe Services LLC, formerly Blackwater, and 200 other private security companies have signed on to a new international code of conduct. The code addresses their use of force, and it bans torture, sexual exploitation, human trafficking and forced labor. The companies are now working with governments and NGOs to build a system to verify that everyone who signs up lives up to their pledge. In the apparel industry, a number of large global companies have opened up factories in their global supply chains to scrutiny by independent auditors and posted reports about their labor practices online. For more than a decade, leading companies including Nike, adidas, Liz Claiborne and H&M have worked hard to improve working conditions in their supply chains, and they have found willing partners from NGOs and universities through an organization called the Fair Labor Association. These companies are making money in hard places. Each has realized that one of the costs of doing business in those places is to assess the risks and to invest in developing principles, people and processes to address the human rights challenges they confront. Your problems are not so different from those oil companies with wells in the Niger Delta, security contractors operating in Iraq or apparel companies sourcing in China or Bangladesh. Your challenges are unique, but the process of addressing those challenges is no different. Over the coming decades, the growth markets for ICT companies will be disproportionally found in less developed countries. That’s where your next three billion customers live. And these are the places where repressive regimes are getting hold of the latest, greatest Western technologies and using them use them to spy on their own citizens for purposes of silencing dissent. Journalists, bloggers and activists are of course the primary targets. So these are the places where companies will face the greatest scrutiny and real challenges. We’ve all seen the news about demands to turn over user information or questions about what has been sold to repressive regimes by Western companies. Three years ago, the headlines were about companies in China. Last month, rebels found Colonel Qaddafi’s Internet surveillance boiler room in Tripoli as reported in the Wall Street Journal. This week, it’s information technology in Syria. Of course we have some sanctions in place, and we enforce them. But whether or not there are formal legal sanctions, companies should be thinking about how to do the right thing. My point is that scrutiny—from the public, the media and Congress—is unlikely to diminish even if the Arab Awakening fades from the headlines, because other governments in some very important emerging markets appear fiercely determined to control what people do online. And just as the extractive industries, private security contractors and apparel companies have found a way forward under scrutiny; your industry must now do the same. I’m not the right person to assess your business models, your technical capacities, or your dealings with individual governments. Each of you will take your own path. But after almost twenty years of working with companies on tough human rights issues, I can tell you what the smart companies are doing. In general, their response has five elements: First, they have developed broad principles to guide their actions. In this field, these probably include principles on free expression and privacy and perhaps also criteria on when to avoid working with governments who use technology to become more efficient at committing gross human rights violations. Second, smart companies are developing internal systems to ensure that these principles are applied in practice. This is not a public relations exercise. It requires senior level buy-in by company leaders, hiring people whose job it is to make sure it happens, and the same focus that executives apply to any other high priority for their business. Third, leading companies devise internal benchmarks of progress. These benchmarks help assess risks and respond to problems, and they allow companies to evaluate whether they are solving the problems the principles seek to address. Fourth, they are banding together to develop industry best practices and plans for collective action. In fiercely competitive industries, no company acting alone has the power to solve human rights problems. Working together, in concert with civil society organizations and willing governments like our own, you will have more clout. In my observation, in the area of human rights this often is an essential ingredient of success. Finally, collective corporate action is bolstered by systematic engagement with stakeholders – with NGOs, universities, think tanks, experts and social investors. They have information, expertise and early warning of problems. Activists, journalists and bloggers are the canaries in your coal mine; if you listen, they can help you anticipate trouble and take steps to address problems before a crisis erupts. And for the record, I offer that same advice to the very governments who often shoot the instant messenger by going out and jailing bloggers instead of listening to the valuable information they convey. Whether you view your stakeholders as dissidents or advisors, they will shape the public debate on your issues. They can make you more credible and validate your efforts. These elements aren’t a prescription or a quick fix. But they do offer a constructive approach that has worked for other companies. And I would be remi ss if I did not call out the efforts of three particular companies, Yahoo, Microsoft and Google, for their leadership and all of the NGOs, academics, social investors and other stakeholders with whom they are working through the Global Network Initiative. For the past five years this group has wrestled collectively with the thorniest issues of the day. These are the kind of efforts that help us find ways forward together. Cyberspace belongs to all of us now. It’s where we live. It’s where you earn your living. And just as no business wants to open its doors in a high-crime neighborhood, no business wants to be located on the street where police are beating up democracy protestors. And we all share an interest in an open Internet that supports a culture of entrepreneurship in which people around the world can thrive. It’s not just the technologies born here in Silicon Valley that are revolutionizing the world and creating huge demand for your products. It’s also the culture, the ethos of innovation, the dedication to freedom, fun and profit that are finding resonance around the world. The Internet on which the future depends can’t be maintained as an open and global network if we don’t work together to figure out how to push back against those who care more about political domination than empowering innovation. My problem is your problem. It’s all of our problem. Silicon Valley has already given birth to game-changing technologies and a profoundly new approach to philanthropy. Many people here have made it their life’s work not only to develop transformative technologies but also to put them in the hands of people in places where digital empowerment is leaps ahead of political or financial or educational empowerment. Never have great ideas gone from dream to global distribution so quickly. But with great code comes great responsibility. It isn’t enough simply to develop a revolutionary product and leave it to others to figure out what happens next. You, the people in this room, are the brain trust for the coming generation – for the next five billion users who will be coming online. So I challenge each of you to work with us to help figure out what can happen next, what must happen next, to preserve the Internet as we know it. Or the autocrats will figure it out for us. And I challenge each of you to innovate again. Not just in your products, but in the way you will serve your customers. People with real needs, and rights, and aspirations for a better life. Innovate for profit, but also for the people in the hard places. We will be your partner. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 06:30:23 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:30:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <455a.28063775.3bd939a5@aol.com> References: <455a.28063775.3bd939a5@aol.com> Message-ID: If only I could watch this conference....I get the following message from Citizentube: "Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference Day 1 This video contains content from SME, UMG and EMI, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds. Sorry about that." quite ironic, oh well, there is always the ICANN meeting to keep me entertained. -- 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 daniel at digsys.bg Wed Oct 26 07:02:05 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:02:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> On Oct 26, 2011, at 00:31 , Ian Peter wrote: > At my last count there were over 140 countries, and I would expect them all to have the opportunity to be involved. That’s why involving the UN makes a lot of sense. Involving governments in the management of Internet is one of the worst ideas, ever. Let me try one more time to explain why: 1. Internet is managed and operated by humans. Those humans happen to live somewhere, therefore subject to some Government's regime. Thus, Governments are already involved. Indirectly. 2. Internet management is (at least what the purpose of ICANN Is) strictly technical in nature. Sure, it involves many "policy" issues, but you need to understand that the trouble here lies in the translation of the word "policy" into most languages. It certainly does not translate in to "politics". (Although in Bulgarian for example, the word is the same) 3. Internet is pretty much private network. Governments did not build it, including the USG. It was built by enthusiasts for the most part and in fact, however strange this sounds today, against the wishes of most governments (possibly, including the USG). 4. The role of governments in all this is to police the outcome and they pretty much already do it. Outside of the Internet management. I have the strong opinion, trough observing the developments trough the years, that the current absurd ICANN state we have is largely because ICANN tried to play with governments. Then later, they started refusing to cooperate with Governments, because the Governments insisted on their policing role and ICANN already think they are oh so great. One of the problems getting Governments directly involved in Internet management is cost. Until now, Governments ignored this "Internet" thing, and therefore do not have the required budget to participate. Having them to deal with this in a more serious sense would require great restructuring in many Governments, that I frankly do not see happening anytime soon. For those who will claim that some Governments are already serious about the Internet, I will offer this: come on - these Governments actually rely on a well functioning private-sector Internet management and they just spend enough effort to voice their concerns -- expecting that those reasonable sensed individuals will understand and help. But what will happen if these same who already manage Internet are removed and Governments have to handle it? Trust me, complete disaster… and this is why it has not happened yet. Daniel PS: Don't get me wrong. I don't have problem with Governments fully engaged -- but I just don't see it happening. Not in the next 20 years. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Oct 26 07:39:59 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:39:59 -0200 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> References: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4EA7F18F.70309@cafonso.ca> Hi Ian, On 10/26/2011 09:02 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > On Oct 26, 2011, at 00:31 , Ian Peter wrote: [...] > Involving governments in the management of Internet is one of the > worst ideas, ever. Depends on what management of which aspect -- as you have said already, the Internet is too many layers, instances and transborder interactions at various levels which is too complex and diverse for us to say "nothing of this will have the gov hand in any way". So let us always qualify when we say this. Secondly, it keeps bothering me how the so-called "technical community" (as you know, I use quotes because I find it hard in many fora to dissociate it from business interests) keeps parroting the "hands off Icann" motto while the same community seems quite comfortable with direct control of the USG over the IANA function. [] fraterno --c.a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Oct 26 08:03:12 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:03:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> References: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880 at digsys.bg>, at 11:02:05 on Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >Involving governments in the management of Internet is one of the worst >ideas, ever Perhaps it is, but much of what they want to do involves "managing" individual users. And sometimes, they try to gain the co-operation of those who are managing the Internet, to assist in managing those users. There has always been a concept of acceptable use, even on completely independent networks. The current difficulty seems to be forming a definition of acceptable use which includes sufficient recognition of the commercial and legal landscape in the offline world. -- 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 jcurran at istaff.org Wed Oct 26 08:49:01 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:49:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <4EA7F18F.70309@cafonso.ca> References: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> <4EA7F18F.70309@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Oct 26, 2011, at 11:39 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Secondly, it keeps bothering me how the so-called "technical community" > (as you know, I use quotes because I find it hard in many fora to > dissociate it from business interests) keeps parroting the "hands off > Icann" motto while the same community seems quite comfortable with > direct control of the USG over the IANA function. Carlos - Can you be clearer regarding which organizations seem "comfortable with direct control of the USG over the IANA function"? I ask to improve my understanding, since I am not aware any of the existing organizations in the Internet technical community with such a view. Thanks! /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Wed Oct 26 10:20:42 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:20:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <4EA7F18F.70309@cafonso.ca> References: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> <4EA7F18F.70309@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5A8571DD-890B-4A07-B01C-24C12C06455F@digsys.bg> On Oct 26, 2011, at 11:39 , Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > On 10/26/2011 09:02 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> >> On Oct 26, 2011, at 00:31 , Ian Peter wrote: > [...] >> Involving governments in the management of Internet is one of the >> worst ideas, ever. > > Depends on what management of which aspect -- as you have said already, > the Internet is too many layers, instances and transborder interactions > at various levels which is too complex and diverse for us to say > "nothing of this will have the gov hand in any way". So let us always > qualify when we say this. It is simpler than that. As I mentioned several times, Governments already do have a say on how Internet develops. They in fact, always had such a say, even during times where Governments, or their agencies etc had clear public policy against the Internet. They do have influence by the virtue of being empowered to guard "public interest". Some do better than others in this regard, but this does not mean they do not have influence. Therefore, I find it hard to understand, why one would need more direct involvement in a purely technical function. > > Secondly, it keeps bothering me how the so-called "technical community" > (as you know, I use quotes because I find it hard in many fora to > dissociate it from business interests) keeps parroting the "hands off > Icann" motto while the same community seems quite comfortable with > direct control of the USG over the IANA function. I for one, would be happy if someone can put their hands on ICANN and make that structure behave. However, it seems to me that it is Governments that like fuzzy structures like ICANN and the (wrong) concentration of too much power at a single place. This is not how Internet is designed and in fact, not how Internet operates --- including not how Internet is governed. I could go that far to say, that for many years now, ICANN has actually being disconnected from the "Internet Governance" as such as that is happening outside and despite of what ICANN is doing. One could say what I commented earlier about Governments' "managing Internet" -- ICANN is doing the same -- they rely on an existing, low-level and largely invisible (*) infrastructure of individuals that actually manages Internet and it is all too easy to claim doing so (by ICANN). Challenge ICANN or any Government to outline how they envision the actually Internet Governance and you will discover they fail badly. Daniel (*) The golden rule of system administration is that you do your job when nobody knows about you. The moment a system administrator becomes visible is the moment they goofed. Some say any publicity is good publicity -- but this is for politicians and system administrators are not politicians.____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Wed Oct 26 10:21:40 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:21:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On Oct 26, 2011, at 12:03 , Roland Perry wrote: > In message <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880 at digsys.bg>, at 11:02:05 on Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >> Involving governments in the management of Internet is one of the worst ideas, ever > > Perhaps it is, but much of what they want to do involves "managing" individual users. And sometimes, they try to gain the co-operation of those who are managing the Internet, to assist in managing those users. > Very much agree. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Oct 26 10:28:29 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:28:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Government involvement in Internet governance on November 4 In-Reply-To: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> (message from Daniel Kalchev on Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:02:05 +0000) References: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <20111026142829.A654215C211@quill.bollow.ch> Daniel Kalchev wrote: > Involving governments in the management of Internet is one of the > worst ideas, ever. I agree, although I'd describe the reasons differently than you do. (I have a feeling that we might be very much in agreement, just inclined to express things differently.) >From my perspective, the key problem with involving governments in core technical Internet governance and management is that they don't understand the technical and architectural concerns nor the processes for building technical consensus. I'd very much like to see government representatives with this important background knowledge becoming involved in all the various Internet governance institutions. In fact, with the exception of ICANN where the government representatives are fenced into their own little walled garden called GAC, in all the other core Internet governance fora there's nothing to hinder the effective participation of government representatives besides their lack of knowledge and capacity, i.e. the goverments' failure to hire people as their representatives who are able to interact in these fora competently and effectively. What is terrible is the idea of giving governments increased authority over the Internet without them having the prerequisite understanding, respect for technical consensus building processes and ability to effectively participate there. Governance by governments who are ignorant in this respect would result in the governments making either "political" decisions that are technically and systemically bad, likely resulting in severe degradation of fundamental human rights such as freedom of expression, and/or decisions that unreasonably favor the interests of big corporations who would spend significant money on lobbying for that to happen. 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 nb at bollow.ch Wed Oct 26 12:27:38 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:27:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <4f89d.308056c1.3bd88de0@aol.com> (KovenRonald@aol.com) References: <4f89d.308056c1.3bd88de0@aol.com> Message-ID: <20111026162738.3294B15C211@quill.bollow.ch> KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/25/11 9:31:20 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com writes: > > > Mahatma Ghandi > > famously said words to the British along the lines of "we would rather > > have > > our own poor government than your very good government". I think that > > applies here, and indeed getting rid of the USG contract might just be a > > catalyst for some ICANN improvements and better levels of involvement. > > > > In other words.you'd rather let China and Russia dictate "our own poor > government" than continue to put up with "very good government" by the US ? > Really ? In the Mahatma Ghandi quote, "our" means something along the lines of "the people here feel that it belongs to us". So the requirement is for a form of governance which people all around the world would describe as "ours". No particular national government, no matter how democratic and well-intentioned, can fulfil this requirement. Nor would anything under the umbrella of the UN fulfil this requirement, IMO. When I took a tour of the UN facilities in Geneva with my family some time back, the guide "explained" the UN General Assembly as the "parliament of the UN". Sorry but a parliament is something very different. Of course that was just a guide, but the UN is also failing to use so many other opportunities to demonstrate understanding of the fundamentals of democratic and participatory decision-making. It could be argued that the UN fulfils a different function, that it's intended mainly to prevent powerful countries from making war with each other. That's ok, I'm quite ok with the UN continuing to fulfil this role, but then when we want to build some kind of governance that people all around the world can describe with the word "our", those governance institutions will have to be build outside the umbrella of the UN, IMO. Something new needs to be created. I'd suggest creating an International Parliament and giving it enough funding to not only hold reasonably fair elections woldwide (in all countries where the national government does not prevent that from happening) but also to do some substantive work of some kind. In would be then up to that parliament to decide in what areas it wants to be active, but I would have some suggestions related to the need for resolving some of the messes that national governments have created with regard to some Internet governance topics. Initially the only authority of the International Parliament would be on how to spend the money that has been put under its authority, and to make recommendations otherwise. After some time, some countries may decide to automatically recognize some kinds of decisions of the International Parliament as a form of binding law that can be enforced in court. Initial funding could come from any source, UN, governmental or non-governmental, it doesn't really matter too much for getting started. In the long run though it'll be important to establish a sustainable funding mechanism that avoids giving anyone undue leverage. 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 garth.graham at telus.net Wed Oct 26 14:50:50 2011 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:50:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] Government involvement in Internet governance on November 4 In-Reply-To: <20111026142829.A654215C211@quill.bollow.ch> References: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> <20111026142829.A654215C211@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <86D28387-69B5-4EF9-AE51-1464D165E848@telus.net> On 2011-10-26, at 7:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >From my perspective, the key problem with involving governments in core technical Internet governance and management is that they don't understand the technical and architectural concerns nor the processes > > for building technical consensus. …….. What is terrible is the idea of giving governments increased authority over the Internet without them having the prerequisite understanding, respect for technical consensus building processes and ability to effectively participate there. But all governments across all sectors and issues make all decisions that way. It has nothing to do with Internet Governance. And, while technical consensus processes do have huge utility, they are only one dimension of operating in the environment of complex adaptive systems. They have no more use in predicting or "managing" the outcomes of CASs, like the Internet itself and the "ecology" of Internet Governance, than anything else. GG ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Oct 26 14:58:34 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:58:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> <4EA7F18F.70309@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202B374@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> It's true, the technical community would like to keep control in the technical community's hands. While they don't Occupy White House to put an end to USG control, they have been pretty consistent about trying to limit, contain or put an orderly end to it. > -----Original Message----- > > Can you be clearer regarding which organizations seem "comfortable > with direct control of the USG over the IANA function"? I ask to > improve my understanding, since I am not aware any of the existing > organizations in the Internet technical community with such a view. > > Thanks! > /John > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Oct 26 18:50:59 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:50:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] Government involvement in Internet governance on November 4 In-Reply-To: <20111026142829.A654215C211@quill.bollow.ch> References: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> <20111026142829.A654215C211@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4FC42968-FC35-4DA5-B73A-B389E65F0C4C@istaff.org> On Oct 26, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > From my perspective, the key problem with involving governments in > core technical Internet governance and management is that they don't > understand the technical and architectural concerns nor the processes > for building technical consensus. I'd very much like to see government > representatives with this important background knowledge becoming > involved in all the various Internet governance institutions. Full agreement. > In fact, with the exception of ICANN where the government representatives > are fenced into their own little walled garden called GAC, in all the > other core Internet governance fora there's nothing to hinder the > effective participation of government representatives besides their > lack of knowledge and capacity, i.e. the goverments' failure to hire > people as their representatives who are able to interact in these fora > competently and effectively. While ICANN does have GAC, I believe that government participation within ICANN is not "fenced in" solely to that committee, i.e. participants from government are free to comment throughout the policy development process (aside from being Director) and are hindered only by their own constraints. FYI, /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Oct 26 20:17:27 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:17:27 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] FW: "Call for contribution: online dialogue on thematic focus and innovative format of WSIS Forum 2012" Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Discussion list for GigaNet members [mailto:GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:45 AM To: GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] FW: CI News: "Call for contribution: online dialogue on thematic focus and innovative format of WSIS Forum 2012" It looks like the start of the discussion to have WSIS 3. Having trouble reading this newsletter? Click here to see it in your browser. {$newsKOtitle} DAILY NEWSLETTER SERVICE Call for contribution: online dialogue on thematic focus and innovative format of WSIS Forum 2012 UNESCO calls for contributions to enrich the online dialogue on its social networking website, "WSIS KC" - UNESCO's online platform. Your inputs will help shaping the WSIS Forum 2012 to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 14 to 18 May 2012. What are the key issues that need to be addressed at the WSIS Forum? Is there any room for improvement in terms of efficiency and effectiveness of the Forum? The fourth edition of the WSIS Forum will take place from 14 to 18 May 2012. Within the framework of its preparatory open consultation process, UNESCO is organizing an online dialogue involving all WSIS stakeholders to discuss about the thematic focus and innovative format of this event. The results of this consultation will feed into the overall agenda of the Forum and help organizers to improve the setup. You can participate in the dialogue either by replying to a discussion board, or by uploading a video message. It will be opened until 15 January 2012 at the WSIS KC -Knowledge Communities website ( www.wsis-community.org). Please note that a video message can be: * recorded by mobile phone, webcam, digital camera, etc.; * up to 10 MB in size; and * up to 3 minutes in length. We look forward to your active participation. For more information about the open consultation, please visit the WSIS Forum 2012 website at www.wsis.org/forum. The WSIS KC - Knowledge Communities platform was created as a contribution by UNESCO to the World Summit on the Information Society. It is an open, global online social network committed to sharing solutions for achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) through ICT for Development. 25.10.2011 Website version of the article Communication and Information Sector 1, rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15, France + 33.1.4568 4243 _____ CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its content. Towards A Sustainable Earth: Print Only When Necessary. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: en.gif Type: image/gif Size: 14935 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: _space.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Oct 27 02:28:48 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:28:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 In-Reply-To: <20111026162738.3294B15C211@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4f89d.308056c1.3bd88de0@aol.com> <20111026162738.3294B15C211@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5B5nS$egoPqOFAUy@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <20111026162738.3294B15C211 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 18:27:38 on Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Norbert Bollow writes >Something new needs to be created. I'd suggest creating an >International Parliament and giving it enough funding to not only >hold reasonably fair elections woldwide (in all countries where the >national government does not prevent that from happening) but also to >do some substantive work of some kind. There are already two models for this (which between them account for two thirds of the worlds' economy I think): The USA Congress/Senate [treating each of the 50 states as mini-country, and they do have their own democratic process, governors etc] and the European Parliament [27 member countries now]. Scaling either of those (and picking the good bits while discarding the bad) to include the entire world is left as an exercise for the reader! -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Oct 27 03:09:49 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:09:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Government involvement in Internet governance on November 4 In-Reply-To: <4FC42968-FC35-4DA5-B73A-B389E65F0C4C@istaff.org> References: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> <20111026142829.A654215C211@quill.bollow.ch> <4FC42968-FC35-4DA5-B73A-B389E65F0C4C@istaff.org> Message-ID: In message <4FC42968-FC35-4DA5-B73A-B389E65F0C4C at istaff.org>, at 22:50:59 on Wed, 26 Oct 2011, John Curran writes >> From my perspective, the key problem with involving governments in >> core technical Internet governance and management is that they don't >> understand the technical and architectural concerns nor the processes >> for building technical consensus. I'd very much like to see government >> representatives with this important background knowledge becoming >> involved in all the various Internet governance institutions. > >Full agreement. Also mindful that one of the reasons the GAC needs time to digest documents and produce responses is because the people sat round the table are only representatives. They have to consult with colleagues in the public service, and with their ministers (and other local stakeholders) for policy matters. In the UK there a was count recently of the ministries with some sort of remit over issues were the Internet was a factor, it came to about a dozen. Each with their respective subject experts. Who is the person to send to the meetings - the expert in telecoms and competition law, copyright and trademarks, freedom of expression and privacy, law enforcement and fraud, the Internet's role in their critical national infrastructure, how BGP and DNSSEC works, or perhaps a capable diplomat and advocate? >> In fact, with the exception of ICANN where the government representatives >> are fenced into their own little walled garden called GAC, in all the >> other core Internet governance fora there's nothing to hinder the >> effective participation of government representatives besides their >> lack of knowledge and capacity, i.e. the goverments' failure to hire >> people as their representatives who are able to interact in these fora >> competently and effectively. > >While ICANN does have GAC, I believe that government participation within >ICANN is not "fenced in" solely to that committee, i.e. participants from >government are free to comment throughout the policy development process >(aside from being Director) and are hindered only by their own constraints. This is a more difficult issue. With a limited number of exceptions, the representatives on the GAC, and their immediate departmental colleagues, are also likely to be involved in matters being discussed at the ITU, at their regional intergovernmental fora such as OECD and Council of Europe, not to mention UN committees such as CSTD. Then there's the IGF (and its prep meetings and national offshoots), RIR policy development meetings, IETF, and various NOGs. You can't be everywhere at once (although some people try, and I used to follow them around the world). Similarly you can't be everywhere at an ICANN meeting - and although the board tries to do this, that's acknowledged to be at least half a full-time job these days, so they aren't trying to cram a year's work into three disjoint weeks. One of the big steps forward made by the GAC in recent years is to deal with intersessional business. In other words, they pay some attention to ICANN matters in between ICANN meetings, and you get less of the unfortunate circumstance that by the time the GAC has met and reached its own consensus on current issues, everyone else is heading home. Nevertheless, when attending an ICANN meeting, much of their time still has to be spent in their own series of meetings, although once again the GAC does increasingly make time out of its own schedule to visit other constituencies, as well as having it's various, and necessarily short, "GAC meets SO" sessions. Perhaps some stakeholders can afford to send enough attendees to an ICANN meeting to follow the GBSO, ccNSO, GAC and several others in parallel. And to have enough manpower to dedicate time to ICANN matters separate from ITU(etc). Governments don't tend to do that, quoting resource issues. That's something citizens might perhaps usefully engage their respective governments about. -- 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 daniel at digsys.bg Thu Oct 27 10:51:11 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:51:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Government involvement in Internet governance on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> <20111026142829.A654215C211@quill.bollow.ch> <4FC42968-FC35-4DA5-B73A-B389E65F0C4C@istaff.org> Message-ID: <3F6F5E02-C091-4A8F-8475-00AC8525177A@digsys.bg> On Oct 27, 2011, at 07:09 , Roland Perry wrote: > In the UK there a was count recently of the ministries with some sort of remit over issues were the Internet was a factor, it came to about a dozen. Each with their respective subject experts. Who is the person to send to the meetings - the expert in telecoms and competition law, copyright and trademarks, freedom of expression and privacy, law enforcement and fraud, the Internet's role in their critical national infrastructure, how BGP and DNSSEC works, or perhaps a capable diplomat and advocate? My choice would be "capable diplomat", anytime. Or a policy advisor of some sort, at least. An 'expert', that is not practicing is not very useful. Daniel____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 11:53:14 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 04:53:14 +1300 Subject: [governance] Disclosure of Involvement Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, I am sending this as co-coordinator of this list. I am as of officially 2 hours ago the new Asia Australasian Pacific Regional At Large Organisation (APRALO) representative to the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) within ICANN. This is by virtue of my being a member of the Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society which is an ISOC Chapter which is an accredited At Large Structure (ALS). This is a voluntary involvement and is unpaid aside from travel to ICANN conferences. I will be able to contribute directly to technical policies and also to encourage people to participate in the development of policies and processes. I am also on record for suggesting encouraging strengthening corporate governance mechanisms within the ICANN. I am not an employee of ICANN and I believe that because it is an organisation that deals with the development of key policies. I will say that all the policies identified in the Working Group on Internet Governance Report (WGIG 2005) are policies discussed within the ICANN space. I want to be active in contributing in policy discussions to ensure that consumer and end user interests are looked after. The ALAC through the APRALO is the way of doing that. As co-coordinator, I see it only fitting that I send disclose this. I am also active in trying to build outreach and capacity development within the Asia Pacific in policy processes. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 12:03:06 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:03:06 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: Disclosure of Involvement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tiny correction to my early statement: "The ALAC through the APRALO is the way of doing that" should read "My involvement in the ALAC through APRALO is a way of doing that" Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > I am sending this as co-coordinator of this list. I am as of officially 2 > hours ago the new Asia Australasian Pacific Regional At Large Organisation > (APRALO) representative to the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) within > ICANN. This is by virtue of my being a member of the Pacific Islands Chapter > of the Internet Society which is an ISOC Chapter which is an accredited At > Large Structure (ALS). This is a voluntary involvement and is unpaid aside > from travel to ICANN conferences. > > I will be able to contribute directly to technical policies and also to > encourage people to participate in the development of policies and > processes. I am also on record for suggesting encouraging strengthening > corporate governance mechanisms within the ICANN. I am not an employee of > ICANN and I believe that because it is an organisation that deals with the > development of key policies. > > I will say that all the policies identified in the Working Group on > Internet Governance Report (WGIG 2005) are policies discussed within the > ICANN space. I want to be active in contributing in policy discussions to > ensure that consumer and end user interests are looked after. The ALAC > through the APRALO is the way of doing that. > > As co-coordinator, I see it only fitting that I send disclose this. I am > also active in trying to build outreach and capacity development within the > Asia Pacific in policy processes. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Oct 28 01:17:42 2011 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:47:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet Message-ID: Hello, http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/india-proposes-government-control-internet This is from Kieren MacCarthy's article: > > "In a statement sent > yesterday, India argued for the creation of a new body to be called the > United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) which would > develop Internet policies, oversee all Internet standards bodies and policy > organizations, negotiate Internet-related treaties, and act as an arbitrator > in Internet-related disputes. > The CIRP would exist under the United Nations, comprise of 50 Member > States, be funded by the United Nations, run by staff from the UN’s > Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) arm, and report directly to the > UN General Assembly." # And the Government spokesperson argued that this “should not be viewed as an attempt by governments to ‘take over’ or ‘regulate and circumscribe’ the Internet.” !! # The IBSA proposal was badly criticized by the Civil Society in the lists and at the Nairobi Internet Governance Forum, it appeared that India wasn't the prime contributor to that imaginative proposal, but those of us who believed that India couldn't have proposed or fully endorsed the first IBSA proposal --- we were wrong. Sivasubramanian M ISOC India Chennai http://isocindiachennai.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Oct 28 02:15:51 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:15:51 +0800 Subject: [governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EAA4897.1040709@ciroap.org> On 28/10/11 13:17, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > This is from Kieren MacCarthy's article: Better to go to the source, for more details and less hyperbole - such as the fact that India is requesting a working group of the CSTD to draw up the detailed terms of the proposed new body. If Brazil and South Africa do come on board, then this is exactly what we have been waiting to respond to in depth. Rather than simply issuing shrill cries about "the UN taking over the Internet", and whether we ultimately decide to oppose this proposal outright or to engage with and improve it, we will need to contribute constructively through this (hopefully multi-stakeholder) CSTD working group, always bearing in mind that the alternative is the status quo. See http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/gaef3319.doc.htm. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2370 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Oct 28 03:59:14 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 07:59:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet In-Reply-To: <4EAA4897.1040709@ciroap.org> References: <4EAA4897.1040709@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2011, at 6:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Rather than simply issuing shrill cries about "the UN taking over the Internet", and whether we ultimately decide to oppose this proposal outright or to engage with and improve it, we will need to contribute constructively through this (hopefully multi-stakeholder) CSTD working group, always bearing in mind that the alternative is the status quo. There are multiple alternatives to engaging to improve this proposal, only one of which is the status quo. Other alternatives include working instead to improve the current multistakeholder systems attending to these matters, or proposing use of an existing treaty body for these purposes. To frame the question as an either/or situation detracts from its fair consideration in fullness of context. /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Fri Oct 28 04:52:09 2011 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:52:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] Disclosure of Involvement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sala, It is with great pleasure to know you in ICANN as ALS. I too am in ICANN as ALS for nearly 6 years almost. With our caucus on Internet governance, complementarity makes sense with the participation in the activities of ICANN specifically in the area of the Internet. *Baudouin* 2011/10/27 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Dear Colleagues, > > I am sending this as co-coordinator of this list. I am as of officially 2 > hours ago the new Asia Australasian Pacific Regional At Large Organisation > (APRALO) representative to the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) within > ICANN. This is by virtue of my being a member of the Pacific Islands Chapter > of the Internet Society which is an ISOC Chapter which is an accredited At > Large Structure (ALS). This is a voluntary involvement and is unpaid aside > from travel to ICANN conferences. > > I will be able to contribute directly to technical policies and also to > encourage people to participate in the development of policies and > processes. I am also on record for suggesting encouraging strengthening > corporate governance mechanisms within the ICANN. I am not an employee of > ICANN and I believe that because it is an organisation that deals with the > development of key policies. > > I will say that all the policies identified in the Working Group on > Internet Governance Report (WGIG 2005) are policies discussed within the > ICANN space. I want to be active in contributing in policy discussions to > ensure that consumer and end user interests are looked after. The ALAC > through the APRALO is the way of doing that. > > As co-coordinator, I see it only fitting that I send disclose this. I am > also active in trying to build outreach and capacity development within the > Asia Pacific in policy processes. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Fri Oct 28 05:27:00 2011 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:27:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] Government involvement in Internet governance on November 4 In-Reply-To: <20111026142829.A654215C211@quill.bollow.ch> References: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> <20111026142829.A654215C211@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hello With regard to the African experience, if that is more complex. Delegations to these meetings are constantly changing depending on whether the government changes or is revised. In most cases, these are people without any skill or when the report went to the hierarchy is not published or made ​​available to others. The principle of "multistakeholder" suffers in some countries where there is no framework for consultation or not respected. The height of the problems in africa any initiative should be brought to the attention of the authorities, specifically with regard to ICT. This is why we insist so much for the support and strengthening of national IGF. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2011/10/26 Norbert Bollow > Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > Involving governments in the management of Internet is one of the > > worst ideas, ever. > > I agree, although I'd describe the reasons differently than you do. > (I have a feeling that we might be very much in agreement, just > inclined to express things differently.) > > From my perspective, the key problem with involving governments in > core technical Internet governance and management is that they don't > understand the technical and architectural concerns nor the processes > for building technical consensus. I'd very much like to see government > representatives with this important background knowledge becoming > involved in all the various Internet governance institutions. In fact, > with the exception of ICANN where the government representatives are > fenced into their own little walled garden called GAC, in all the > other core Internet governance fora there's nothing to hinder the > effective participation of government representatives besides their > lack of knowledge and capacity, i.e. the goverments' failure to hire > people as their representatives who are able to interact in these fora > competently and effectively. > > What is terrible is the idea of giving governments increased authority > over the Internet without them having the prerequisite understanding, > respect for technical consensus building processes and ability to > effectively participate there. Governance by governments who are > ignorant in this respect would result in the governments making either > "political" decisions that are technically and systemically bad, > likely resulting in severe degradation of fundamental human rights > such as freedom of expression, and/or decisions that unreasonably > favor the interests of big corporations who would spend significant > money on lobbying for that to happen. > > Greetings, > Norbert > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 28 06:25:52 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:55:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet In-Reply-To: <4EAA4897.1040709@ciroap.org> References: <4EAA4897.1040709@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4EAA8330.7020902@itforchange.net> Kieren's MacCarthy's is a typical North biased IG report. One wonders how this kind of thing passes off as news and journalism, as one also notes the unfortunate situation where the hegemonic Northern models get so easily supported and touted through the availability of all kind of resources - including 'journalistic', and anything from the South as easily and quickly damned, with no one to give an unbiased presentation and analysis of. I am cut pasting the full statement by India at the end of this email for easy reference (and also enclosing it). BTW, do note that 1) The Internet public policy making model that has been suggested is almost *an exact replica* of OECD's Internet public policy making system. So, while people comment on this proposal, it will be nice to us, from developing countries, also to put in a few words on how do they see the OECD's Internet policy model which is as inter-gov or multi-stakeholder as the one proposed by India. In fact, in India's proposed model there is a complete section on the IGF's relation to the proposed new body whereby the later is expressly mandated to take note of inputs from the IGF. (No corresponding structure/ system exists in the case of OECD, which makes this proposed global system more multistakeholder that OECD's system, which, incidentally, makes much of default global Internet related public policies at present.) 2) An 'multistakeholder environment', to employ Wolfgang's concept, which will contribute to policy making is prominently stressed in many places, and also given a clear 'body' through specific structures/bodies, and a description of the nature of their work. 3) I know the basic problem remains. Most people here think technical policy - ICANN, IETF et all - ONLY, when such a proposal is mentioned. However, to any neutral reader it should be very clear that the main thrust of the proposal is about the 'social' public policies of the kind OECD. CoE etc makes and not the ICANN, IETF etc. (I know this will fall on deaf ears :) ) 4) Unlike as reported by Keiren, there is no attempt or desire to fold up the distributed global technical policy making system into one body, in any way. However one can be sure that 90 % or more of the 'press' and comments this proposal will get will be about the technical policy making system, and how it is sought to be unified into one body under the UN. I see in India's proposal much attempt to anticipate and address this wrong notion, but such is the power of the dominant discourse that I dont expect them to succeed. I have never EVER heard anyone in the India's establishment expressing any desire to make changes to the basic Internet's technical policy system, other than the oversight element (and a very thin oversight at that, as at present). 5) What is attempted in the case of existing global technical policy making system is to ask for the kind of oversight levers that are with the US government at present to be shifted to a more democratic body. This is an article of faith for developing countries, and we hope for anyone with any belief in global democracy, and is a known and consistent position of developing countries (notwithstanding the neo-colonial, 'US control is fine' kind of, views that we read on this list in the recent IANA related discussion.) The precise means by which the US oversight over key Internet technical nodes is democratised is something that I understand India and other developing countries are ready to discuss different views on, as long as the basic principal of untenability of US's unilateral control is accepted. 6) In any case India's proposal says they are ready to listen to others views. In fact, the present proposal, in my understanding, seems quite informed of the inputs that the Rio recs received (while of course India cannot be paying much heed to the kind of inputs whose basic thrust is; you guys just shut up; let the rich and wise countries keep telling you what is right and wrong about the Internet). Even now, those who have problems with the India's proposed model must come up with what is the alternative Internet policy making model (for both 'OECD/CoE kind' social/ public policies and the oversight of the existing tech policy system, which distributed system no one wants to disturb). Then alone shall the criticism be credible. Otherwise it is just a very round about way of saying that the status quo is fine. It is not fine for us in developing countries. In fact it is not fine for any progressive force throughout the world. Parminder Text of the statement delivered on 26 October 2011 afternoon by Hon'ble Dushyant Singh, Member of Parliament, in the Second Committee under agendas item 16: ICT for Development on India's proposal for Global Internet Governance is forwarded herewith, for information and record. *66^th session of** **the UN General Assembly* *Agenda item 16: Information and Communications* *Technologies for Development (ICT): Global Internet Governance* *_Statement by India_* Mr. Chairman, We thank the Secretary-General for his report on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, contained in document A/66/77, which provides a useful introduction to the discussions under this agenda item. As a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and democratic society with an open economy and an abiding culture of pluralism, India emphasizes the importance that we attach to the strengthening of the Internet as a vehicle for openness, democracy, freedom of expression, human rights, diversity, inclusiveness, creativity, free and unhindered access to information and knowledge, global connectivity, innovation and socio-economic growth. We believe that the governance of such an unprecedented global medium that embodies the values of democracy, pluralism, inclusion, openness and transparency should also be similarly inclusive, democratic, participatory, multilateral and transparent in nature. Indeed, this was already recognized and mandated by the Tunis Agenda in 2005, as reflected in paragraphs 34, 35, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 69 of the Agenda. Regrettably, in the six long years that have gone by, no substantial initiative has been taken by the global community to give effect to this mandate. Meanwhile, the internet has grown exponentially in its reach and scope, throwing up several new and rapidly emerging challenges in the area of global internet governance that continue to remain inadequately addressed. It is becoming increasingly evident that the Internet as a rapidly-evolving and inherently global medium, needs quick-footed and timely global solutions and policies, not divergent and fragmented national policies. The range and criticality of these pressing global digital issues that continue to remain unaddressed, are growing rapidly with each passing day. It is, therefore, urgent and imperative that a multilateral, democratic participative and transparent global policy-making mechanism be urgently instituted, as mandated by the Tunis Agenda under the process of ‘Enhanced Co-operation’, to enable coherent and integrated global policy-making on all aspects of global Internet governance. Operationalizing the Tunis mandate in this regard should not be viewed as an attempt by governments to “take over” or “regulate and circumscribe” the internet. Indeed, any such misguided attempt would be antithetical not only to the internet, but also to human welfare. As a democratic and open society that has historically welcomed outside influences and believes in openness to all views and ideas and is wedded to free dialogue, pluralism and diversity, India attaches great importance to the preservation of the Internet as an unrestricted, open and free global medium that flourishes through private innovation and individual creativity and serves as a vehicle for open communication, access to culture, knowledge, democratization and development. India recognizes the role played by various actors and stakeholders in the development and continued enrichment of the internet, and is firmly committed to multi-stakeholderism in internet governance, both at the national and global level. India believes that global internet governance can only be functional, effective and credible if all relevant stake-holders contribute to, and are consulted in, the process. Bearing in mind the need for a transparent, democratic, and multilateral mechanism that enables all stakeholders to participate in their respective roles, to address the many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by current mechanisms and the need for enhanced cooperation to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, India proposes the establishment of a new institutional mechanism in the United Nations for global internet-related policies, to be called the United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP). The intent behind proposing a multilateral and multi-stakeholder mechanism is not to “control the internet’’ or allow Governments to have the last word in regulating the internet, but to make sure that the Internet is governed not unilaterally, but in an open, democratic, inclusive and participatory manner, with the participation of all stakeholders, so as to evolve universally acceptable, and globally harmonized policies in important areas and pave the way for a credible, constantly evolving, stable and well-functioning Internet that plays its due role in improving the quality of peoples’ lives everywhere. The CIRP shall be mandated to undertake the following tasks: i. Develop and establish international public policies with a view to ensuring coordination and coherence in cross-cutting Internet-related global issues; ii. Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting; iii. Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies; iv. Address developmental issues related to the internet; v. Promote the promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development; vi. Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary; and, vii. Crisis management in relation to the Internet. The main features of CIRP are provided in the annex to this statement. In brief, the CIRP will comprise 50 Member States chosen on the basis of equitable geographical representation, and will meet annually for two working weeks in Geneva. It will ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders by establishing four Advisory Groups, one each for civil society, the private sector, inter-governmental and international organizations, and the technical and academic community. The Advisory Groups will provide their inputs and recommendations to the CIRP. The meetings of CIRP and the advisory groups will be serviced by the UNCTAD Secretariat that also services the meetings of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The Internet Governance Forum will provide inputs to CIRP in the spirit of complementarity between the two. CIRP will report directly to the General Assembly and present recommendations for consideration, adoption and dissemination among all relevant inter-governmental bodies and international organizations. CIRP will be supported by the regular budget of the United Nations; a separate Fund would be set up by drawing from the domain registration fees collected by various bodies, in order to mainly finance the Research Wing to be established by CIRP to support its activities*. * Those familiar with the discourse on global internet governance since the beginning of the WSIS process at the turn of the millennium, will recognize that neither the mandated tasks of the CIRP, nor its proposed modalities, are new. The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) set up by the UN Secretary- General had explicitly recognized the institutional gaps in global internet governance and had proposed four institutional models in its report to the UN General Assembly in 2005. The contours of the CIRP, as proposed above, reflect the common elements in the four WGIG institutional models. While the excellent report of the WGIG was much discussed and deliberated in 2005, unfortunately, no concrete follow-up action was taken to give effect to its recommendations on the institutional front. We hope that this anomaly will be redressed at least six years later, with the timely establishment of the CIRP. In order to operationalize this proposal, India calls for the establishment of an open-ended working group under the Commission on Science and Technology for Development for drawing up the detailed terms of reference for CIRP, with a view to actualizing it within the next 18 months. We are open to the views and suggestions of all Member States, and stand ready to work with other delegations to carry forward this proposal, and thus seek to fill the serious gap in the implementation of the Tunis Agenda, by providing substance and content to the concept of Enhanced Co-operation enshrined in the Tunis Agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. *** *_ _**_Annex _* *_The United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP)_* The United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) will have the following features: *Membership: * The CIRP will consist of 50 Member States of the United Nations, chosen/elected on the basis of equitable geographical representation. It will provide for equitable representation of all UN Member States, in accordance with established UN principles and practices. It will have a Bureau consisting of one Chair, three Vice-Chairs and a Rapporteur. *Meetings: * The CIRP will meet annually for two working weeks in Geneva, preferably in May/June, and convene additional meetings, as and when required.* * The UNCTAD Secretariat will provide substantive and logistical support to the CIRP by servicing these meetings. *Multi-stakeholder participation:* Recognizing the need to involve all stakeholders in Global Internet Governance in their respective roles, the CIRP shall ensure the participation of all stakeholders recognized in the Tunis Agenda. Four* **Advisory Groups* – one each for Civil Society, the Private Sector, Inter-Governmental and International Organisations*,* and the Technical and Academic Community - will be established, to assist and advise the CIRP. These Groups would be self-organized, as per agreed principles, to ensure transparency, representativity and inclusiveness. The Advisory Groups will meet annually in Geneva and in conjunction with any additional meetings of the CIRP*. T*heir meetings will be held back-to- back with the meeting*s* of the CIRP, so that they are able to provide their inputs and recommendations in a timely manner, to the CIRP. *Reporting*: The CIRP will report directly to the UN General Assembly annually, on its meetings and present recommendations in the areas of policy and implementation for consideration, adoption and dissemination to all relevant inter-governmental bodies and international organizations. . *Research Wing:* The Internet is a rapidly-evolving and dynamic medium that throws up urgent and rapidly-evolving challenges that need timely solutions*.* In order to deal effectively and prudently with these emerging issues in a timely manner, it would be vital to have a well-resourced Research Wing attached to the CIRP to provide ready and comprehensive background material, analysis and inputs to the CIRP, as required. *Links with the IGF: * Recognizing the value of the Internet Governance Forum as an open, unique forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on Internet issues, the deliberations in the IGF along with any inputs, background information and analysis it may provide, will be taken as inputs for consideration of the CIRP. An improved and strengthened IGF that can serve as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP, will ensure a stronger and more effective complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF. *Budget:* Like other UN bodies, the CIRP should be supported by the regular budget of the United Nations. In addition, keeping in view its unique multi-stakeholder format for inclusive participation, and the need for a well-resourced Research Wing and regular meetings, a separate Fund should also be set up drawing from the domain registration fees collected by various bodies involved in the technical functioning of the Internet, especially in terms of names and addresses. *** *_Excerpts from the Tunis Agenda_* *Paragraph 34* of the Tunis Agenda defines Internet Governance as/ //“the// //development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet”./ *Paragraph 35* reaffirms the respective roles of stakeholders as follows:/ //“(a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues”. (b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical an economic fields. (c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level,// //and should continue to play such a role. (d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. (e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.”/ While delineating the respective roles of stakeholders,* **Paragraph 56* recognizes the need for an inclusive, multi-stakeholder approach by affirming that/ //“The Internet remains a highly dynamic medium and therefore any framework and mechanisms designed to deal with Internet governance should be inclusive and responsive to the exponential growth and fast evolution of the Internet as a common platform for the development of multiple applications”./ *Paragraph 58* recognizes/ //“that Internet governance includes more than Internet naming and addressing. It also includes other significant public policy issues such as, inter alia, critical Internet resources, the security and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and issues pertaining to the use of the Internet”. /* * *Paragraph 59* further recognizes that/ “Internet governance includes social, economic and technical issues including affordability, reliability and quality of service”. /* **Paragraph 60* further recognizes that/ //“there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms”./ *Paragraph 61* of the Tunis Agenda therefore concludes that/ //“_We are convinced that there is a need to initiate, and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and international organisations, in their respective roles. This process could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, where justified, thus spurring the ongoing and active evolution of the current arrangements in order to synergize the efforts in this regard”._/ *Paragraph 69* further recognizes/ //“the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues”./ /***/ On Friday 28 October 2011 11:45 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 28/10/11 13:17, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> This is from Kieren MacCarthy's article: > > Better to go to the source, for more details and less hyperbole - such > as the fact that India is requesting a working group of the CSTD to > draw up the detailed terms of the proposed new body. If Brazil and > South Africa do come on board, then this is exactly what we have been > waiting to respond to in depth. Rather than simply issuing shrill > cries about "the UN taking over the Internet", and whether we > ultimately decide to oppose this proposal outright or to engage with > and improve it, we will need to contribute constructively through this > (hopefully multi-stakeholder) CSTD working group, always bearing in > mind that the alternative is the status quo. > > See http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/gaef3319.doc.htm. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer > groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only > independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over > 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful > international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > _www.consumersinternational.org _ > _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: India EC st to UN 1011.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 246143 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From KovenRonald at aol.com Fri Oct 28 06:28:00 2011 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 06:28:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] UNESCO General Conference on Internet ethics Message-ID: <179da.6aed3a55.3bdbddb0@aol.com> Dear All -- Consideration of the UNESCO Communication program starts in commission hearing at UNESCO's General Conference on Nov. 1 at 10 a.m. and continues through Nov. 4. The main potential trouble is over a resolution endorsing a code of ethics for Internet. The document is available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002126/212696e.pdf The actual code of ethics is an annex to the document, at the same address. Best regards, Rony Koven -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 28 06:46:59 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:46:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet In-Reply-To: <4EAA4897.1040709@ciroap.org> (message from Jeremy Malcolm on Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:15:51 +0800) References: <4EAA4897.1040709@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20111028104700.0C6C315C2A4@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Better to go to the source, for more details and less hyperbole - such > as the fact that India is requesting a working group of the CSTD to draw > up the detailed terms of the proposed new body. > > See http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/gaef3319.doc.htm. Here is the relevant part of the document in full: Brazil’s representative pointed to significant progress since the Tunis phase of the World Summit on the Information Society, pointing to the expansion in the use and development of information and communications technology, as well as the greater consideration accorded its role in formulating broader public policies globally. However, much more needed to be achieved, he said, underscoring the essential importance of overcoming the digital divide through policies that would ensure that all Member States benefited from instant networking, free or low-cost access to information, education and cultural goods, and the promotion of cultural diversity. India’s representative reinforced that point, calling for the establishment of a new institutional mechanism within the United Nations for global Internet-related policies. The goal of the proposed "United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies" would not be to control the Internet but to ensure that it was governed in an open, democratic, inclusive and participatory manner, he said. It would take on the task of developing international public policies to ensure coordination and coherence in cross-cutting Internet-related global issues while addressing Internet-related developmental issues, among others. To me this doesn't sound terribly bad, even though (like everything else) this could become bad quickly if implemented badly. For example, I think that there's a significant risk of "copyright industry" special interests gaining undue influence on the policy debates in such a Committee. 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 KovenRonald at aol.com Fri Oct 28 06:50:03 2011 From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 06:50:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet Message-ID: <17f56.3e52fde8.3bdbe2db@aol.com> Dear Parminder -- Nobody has impugned the motives of the Indian government in this matter. The problem is how does one create a UN body that is not dominated by a majority of UN member states that are not working democracies. China, Russia and other countries that -- unlike India -- do indeed seek control over the Internet are bound to weigh very heavily in any such body. Consider, for example, the checkered history of the UN Human Rights Council. It is in that context that I advocate "leaving well enough alone," not out of any desire to perpetuate neo-colonialist domination. The present setup is indeed messy and theoretically most unsatisfactory. The problem is, what is in practice the real alternative ? Best regards, Rony Koven -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 28 07:43:47 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:43:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Alternative to status quo (was Re: India Proposes...) In-Reply-To: <17f56.3e52fde8.3bdbe2db@aol.com> (KovenRonald@aol.com) References: <17f56.3e52fde8.3bdbe2db@aol.com> Message-ID: <20111028114347.961AF15C2A4@quill.bollow.ch> KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: > It is in that context that I advocate "leaving well enough alone," not out > of any desire to perpetuate neo-colonialist domination. The present setup is > indeed messy and theoretically most unsatisfactory. The problem is, what is > in practice the real alternative ? IMO, as I said before, the real alternative starts with the creation of an International Parliament consisting of people who are elected in free and open, worldwide elections. 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 ca at cafonso.ca Fri Oct 28 07:44:59 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:44:59 -0200 Subject: [governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet In-Reply-To: <4EAA4897.1040709@ciroap.org> References: <4EAA4897.1040709@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4EAA95BB.7030600@cafonso.ca> Good point, Jeremy. I quote Kieren McCarthy's phrase on the CIRP proposal: "In a nod to the multi-stakeholder model of decision-making that currently defines much of the Internet’s processes - and where all actors from business to academia to the technical community and governments are given equal say in decisions - the Indian proposal foresees the creation of four “Advisory Groups” that would represent civil society, the private sector, inter-governmental and international organizations, and the technical and academic community." Now, think of this "equal say in decisions" when we are confronted, for example, by the antipiracy legislation (just introduced in US Congress by the IPR lobbies) which will quite probably turn into law soon -- powerful interests such as these are far more "equal" than others... A blunt case of unilateral intervention by a single government affecting the entire Internet (as we are not naive to think that this will be contained within the USA borders). And we have nothing to confront this on a world scale except the "dialogues" of the IGF, which is nothing. --c.a. On 10/28/2011 04:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 28/10/11 13:17, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> This is from Kieren MacCarthy's article: > > Better to go to the source, for more details and less hyperbole - such > as the fact that India is requesting a working group of the CSTD to draw > up the detailed terms of the proposed new body. If Brazil and South > Africa do come on board, then this is exactly what we have been waiting > to respond to in depth. Rather than simply issuing shrill cries about > "the UN taking over the Internet", and whether we ultimately decide to > oppose this proposal outright or to engage with and improve it, we will > need to contribute constructively through this (hopefully > multi-stakeholder) CSTD working group, always bearing in mind that the > alternative is the status quo. > > See http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/gaef3319.doc.htm. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Fri Oct 28 08:00:03 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:00:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] Government involvement in Internet governance on November 4 In-Reply-To: References: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> <20111026142829.A654215C211@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <63D48727-E8A0-4CFB-9262-D951360CF234@digsys.bg> On Oct 28, 2011, at 09:27 , Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > The principle of "multistakeholder" suffers in some countries where there is no framework for consultation or not respected. I just want to assure you that this is happening not only in Africa. Examples, where such arrangement really works are rather rare and I suspect, that as with anything else this is happening because of some bright individuals in the respective Governments who push for it, not because the system works. This is probably how any political environment works, anyway. After all, those representatives are only human. To overcome this human behavior limitation it is important to not concentrate too much power at one place. Avoid involving Governments in technical matters and avoid involving technical community (*) in political matters. The Internet Governance "policy" is actually multifaceted -- it has aspects for both politicians and technical people as well as the civil society etc. Internet has been successful because it had never, ever one central command post. You kill one of the leaders, but there are thousands or (now) millions other to stand up. Daniel (*) It is important to understand, that the technical community does not include only the so called "techies" or "geeks". It also includes, for example a lot of people with vision about how this thing develops. These people are in the "technical" side, just because they do not care about the "politics" involved. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Oct 28 08:35:10 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:35:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> References: <20111028054943.GA25885@vortex.com>,<398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> The headline you knew was coming...has arrived. Lee ________________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 8:11 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet Begin forwarded message: From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: [ NNSquad ] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet Date: October 28, 2011 1:49:43 AM EDT To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet http://j.mp/w19BYF (.nxt) "The Indian government has formally proposed a government takeover of the Internet at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. In a statement sent yesterday, India argued for the creation of a new body to be called the United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) which would develop Internet policies, oversee all Internet standards bodies and policy organizations, negotiate Internet-related treaties, and act as an arbitrator in Internet-related disputes." - - - Yep, "fantasy" is the accurate term. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org Founder: - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20111028081109:E8A920E8-015D-11E1-BE43-BB94C7D63B46 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From email at hakik.org Fri Oct 28 09:15:34 2011 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:15:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Government involvement in Internet governance on November 4 In-Reply-To: <63D48727-E8A0-4CFB-9262-D951360CF234@digsys.bg> References: <053C44BF-D208-4048-AFAE-422A95878880@digsys.bg> <20111026142829.A654215C211@quill.bollow.ch> <63D48727-E8A0-4CFB-9262-D951360CF234@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <20111028131705.F22044BC93@npogroups.org> At 01:00 PM 10/28/2011, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > (*) It is important to understand, that the technical community does not include only the so called "techies" or "geeks". It also includes, for example a lot of people with vision about how this thing develops. These people are in the "technical" side, just because they do not care about the "politics" involved. I also believe that those techies or whatever you call them likes to develop things that are relevant for current and future generations. Also agree that they do not think about politics. However, as a real fact, with my little experience on Internet governance in developing countries, support from upper level of the government, in whichever form or norm are essential in implementing the policies. Even at the development stage, supports are important. Now, that is the major issue, how and in what form they come. In return, what the government wants? But, if it is through a democratic process and guided by the multi-stakeholders participation, things must improve in the longer run. Best regards, Hakik >On Oct 28, 2011, at 09:27 , Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > > > The principle of "multistakeholder" suffers in some countries > where there is no framework for consultation or not respected. > >I just want to assure you that this is happening not only in Africa. >Examples, where such arrangement really works are rather rare and I >suspect, that as with anything else this is happening because of >some bright individuals in the respective Governments who push for >it, not because the system works. This is probably how any political >environment works, anyway. After all, those representatives are only human. > >To overcome this human behavior limitation it is important to not >concentrate too much power at one place. Avoid involving Governments >in technical matters and avoid involving technical community (*) in >political matters. The Internet Governance "policy" is actually >multifaceted -- it has aspects for both politicians and technical >people as well as the civil society etc. > >Internet has been successful because it had never, ever one central >command post. You kill one of the leaders, but there are thousands >or (now) millions other to stand up. > >Daniel > >(*) It is important to understand, that the technical community does >not include only the so called "techies" or "geeks". It also >includes, for example a lot of people with vision about how this >thing develops. These people are in the "technical" side, just >because they do not care about the "politics" involved. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Fri Oct 28 09:22:52 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:22:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Alternative to status quo (was Re: India Proposes...) In-Reply-To: <20111028114347.961AF15C2A4@quill.bollow.ch> References: <17f56.3e52fde8.3bdbe2db@aol.com> <20111028114347.961AF15C2A4@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <17CA63CD-24CF-4123-AC8B-C26498016236@digsys.bg> On Oct 28, 2011, at 11:43 , Norbert Bollow wrote: > KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: > >> It is in that context that I advocate "leaving well enough alone," not out >> of any desire to perpetuate neo-colonialist domination. The present setup is >> indeed messy and theoretically most unsatisfactory. The problem is, what is >> in practice the real alternative ? > > IMO, as I said before, the real alternative starts with the creation > of an International Parliament consisting of people who are elected in > free and open, worldwide elections. Except that the capable people will never, ever run for election. Those who will be elected will be the next wave of opportunists. Daniel____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 28 09:56:33 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 06:56:33 -0700 Subject: [governance] Alternative to status quo (was Re: India Proposes...) In-Reply-To: <17CA63CD-24CF-4123-AC8B-C26498016236@digsys.bg> Message-ID: Daniel, I think it is most regrettable that your experience with governance and governing has evidently left you with very deep scars, resentments, and cynicism. You should know however, that your experience is by no means universal and my own experience is to have had the opportunity to know, work with and share the benefits of the outcomes of politics and politicians who were dedicated, public spirited and honest to a fault. Certainly I have known politicians of the kind you are referring to, and they unfortunately come to ascendency when citizens are unwilling or unable to act effectively in the public sphere but I think it is extremely dangerous to suggest that we act in a completely defensive and cynical posture towards all structures of governance and those who occupy them. It seems to me that when confronted with the structures and individuals of the type you are pointing to, the response should be to redouble our individual and collaborative efforts towards effective processes rather than to look to have governance turned over to the unelected, the unaccountable and the more or less completely opaque. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Kalchev Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 6:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Alternative to status quo (was Re: India Proposes...) On Oct 28, 2011, at 11:43 , Norbert Bollow wrote: > KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: > >> It is in that context that I advocate "leaving well enough alone," not out >> of any desire to perpetuate neo-colonialist domination. The present setup is >> indeed messy and theoretically most unsatisfactory. The problem is, what is >> in practice the real alternative ? > > IMO, as I said before, the real alternative starts with the creation > of an International Parliament consisting of people who are elected in > free and open, worldwide elections. Except that the capable people will never, ever run for election. Those who will be elected will be the next wave of opportunists. Daniel____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Fri Oct 28 10:06:43 2011 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:36:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20111028054943.GA25885@vortex.com>,<398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4EAAB6F3.3010002@cis-india.org> I love how WSIS and IGF "took over" the Internet, and I look forward to further "takeovers" of the Internet in the days to come. I wonder if folks will now start #OccupyTheInternet - Pranesh Lee W McKnight wrote [2011-10-28 18:05]: > The headline you knew was coming...has arrived. > > Lee -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 262 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From daniel at digsys.bg Fri Oct 28 13:35:52 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:35:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Alternative to status quo (was Re: India Proposes...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike, I might have overstated my concerns. Of course, I do my best and encourage everyone in my environment to try to work via procedures and processes for the better outcome. This usually works, especially more recently as those politicians learn that brute force attempts are usually unsuccessful. Perhaps my statement indeed was too condensed.. But experts are rarely interested in political carrier, mostly because they see the fulfillment of their vision in what they do (best). Daniel On Oct 28, 2011, at 13:56 , michael gurstein wrote: > Daniel, > > I think it is most regrettable that your experience with governance and > governing has evidently left you with very deep scars, resentments, and > cynicism. > > You should know however, that your experience is by no means universal and > my own experience is to have had the opportunity to know, work with and > share the benefits of the outcomes of politics and politicians who were > dedicated, public spirited and honest to a fault. > > Certainly I have known politicians of the kind you are referring to, and > they unfortunately come to ascendency when citizens are unwilling or unable > to act effectively in the public sphere but I think it is extremely > dangerous to suggest that we act in a completely defensive and cynical > posture towards all structures of governance and those who occupy them. > > It seems to me that when confronted with the structures and individuals of > the type you are pointing to, the response should be to redouble our > individual and collaborative efforts towards effective processes rather than > to look to have governance turned over to the unelected, the unaccountable > and the more or less completely opaque. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > Of Daniel Kalchev > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 6:23 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] Alternative to status quo (was Re: India > Proposes...) > > > > On Oct 28, 2011, at 11:43 , Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: >> >>> It is in that context that I advocate "leaving well enough alone," not > out >>> of any desire to perpetuate neo-colonialist domination. The present setup > is >>> indeed messy and theoretically most unsatisfactory. The problem is, what > is >>> in practice the real alternative ? >> >> IMO, as I said before, the real alternative starts with the creation >> of an International Parliament consisting of people who are elected in >> free and open, worldwide elections. > > > Except that the capable people will never, ever run for election. > > Those who will be elected will be the next wave of opportunists. > > Daniel____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Oct 29 04:13:18 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:13:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet In-Reply-To: <4EAA8330.7020902@itforchange.net> References: <4EAA4897.1040709@ciroap.org> <4EAA8330.7020902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, Is there a link to the actual proposal given to the GA or just text of a speech? Going by the speech alone, it sure looks like a "takeover" to me, to wit: ii.     Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and > operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting; vi.     Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary; and, vii.    Crisis management in relation to the Internet. I've just chosen the top 3, but all of these functions are done by other bodies, are done quite well and have been done for a long time. quoting ISOC: "The Internet model of decentralized architecture and distributed responsibility for development, operation, and management has been the catalyst for boundless innovation and creativity. " I'm one of those people who does not consider that "gaps" in 'social' public policies re; Internet are sufficient to merit such a draconian "multilateral" body. In other words, the remedy is far worse than the illness. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:25 PM, parminder wrote: > Kieren's MacCarthy's is a typical North biased IG report. One wonders how > this kind of thing passes off as news and journalism, as one also notes the > unfortunate situation where the hegemonic Northern models get so easily > supported and touted through the availability of all kind of resources - > including 'journalistic', and anything from the South as easily and quickly > damned, with no one to give an unbiased presentation and analysis of. > > I am cut pasting the full statement by India at the end of this email for > easy reference (and also enclosing it). > > BTW, do note that > > 1) The Internet public policy making model that has been suggested is almost > *an exact replica* of OECD's Internet public policy making system. So, while > people comment on this proposal, it will be nice to us, from developing > countries, also to put in a few words on how do they see the OECD's Internet > policy model which is as inter-gov or multi-stakeholder as the one proposed > by India. In fact, in India's proposed model there is a complete section on > the IGF's relation to the proposed new body whereby the later is expressly > mandated to take note of inputs from the IGF. (No corresponding structure/ > system exists in the case of OECD, which makes this proposed global system > more multistakeholder that OECD's system, which, incidentally, makes much of > default global Internet related public policies at present.) > > 2) An 'multistakeholder environment', to employ Wolfgang's concept, which > will contribute to policy making is prominently stressed in many places, and > also given a clear 'body' through specific structures/bodies, and a > description of the nature of their work. > > 3) I know the basic problem remains. Most people here think technical policy > - ICANN, IETF et all - ONLY, when such a proposal is mentioned. However, to > any neutral reader it should be very clear that the main thrust of the > proposal is about the 'social' public policies of the kind OECD. CoE etc > makes and not the ICANN, IETF etc. (I know this will fall on deaf ears :) ) > > 4) Unlike as reported by Keiren, there is no attempt or desire to fold up > the distributed global technical policy making system into one body, in any > way. However one can be sure that 90 % or more of the 'press' and comments > this proposal will get will be about the technical policy making system, and > how it is sought to be unified into one body under the UN. I see in India's > proposal much attempt to anticipate and address this wrong notion, but such > is the power of the dominant discourse that I dont expect them to succeed. I > have never EVER heard anyone in the India's establishment expressing any > desire to make changes to the basic Internet's technical policy system, > other than the oversight element (and a very thin oversight at that, as at > present). > > 5) What is attempted in the case of existing global technical policy making > system is to ask for the kind of oversight levers that are with the US > government at present to be shifted to a more democratic body. This is an > article of faith for developing countries, and we hope for anyone with any > belief in global democracy, and is a known and consistent position of > developing countries (notwithstanding the neo-colonial, 'US control is fine' > kind of, views that we read on this list in the recent IANA related > discussion.) The precise means by which the US oversight over key Internet > technical nodes is democratised is something that I understand India and > other developing countries are ready to discuss different views on, as long > as the basic principal of untenability of US's unilateral control is > accepted. > > 6) In any case India's proposal says they are ready to listen to others > views. In fact, the present proposal, in my understanding, seems quite > informed of the inputs that the Rio recs received (while of course India > cannot be paying much heed to the kind of inputs whose basic thrust is; you > guys just shut up; let the rich and wise countries keep telling you what is > right and wrong about the Internet). > > Even now, those who have problems with the India's proposed model must come > up with what is the alternative Internet policy making model (for both > 'OECD/CoE kind' social/ public policies and the oversight of the existing > tech policy system, which distributed system no one wants to disturb). Then > alone shall the criticism be credible. Otherwise it is just a very round > about way of saying that the status quo is fine. It is not fine for us in > developing countries. In fact it is not fine for any progressive force > throughout the world. > > Parminder > > Text of the statement delivered on 26 October 2011 afternoon by Hon'ble > Dushyant Singh, Member of Parliament, in the Second Committee under agendas > item 16: ICT for Development on India's proposal for Global Internet > Governance is forwarded herewith, for information and record. > > > > 66th session of the UN General Assembly > > Agenda item 16: Information and Communications > > Technologies for Development (ICT): Global Internet Governance > > Statement by India > > Mr. Chairman, > > We thank the Secretary-General for his report on enhanced cooperation on > public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, contained in document > A/66/77, which provides a useful introduction to the discussions under this > agenda item. > > As a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and democratic society with an open > economy and an abiding culture of pluralism, India emphasizes the importance > that we attach to the strengthening of the Internet as a vehicle for > openness,   democracy, freedom of expression, human rights, diversity, > inclusiveness, creativity, free and unhindered access to information and > knowledge, global connectivity, innovation and socio-economic growth. > > We believe that the governance of such an unprecedented global medium that > embodies the values of democracy, pluralism, inclusion, openness and > transparency should also be similarly inclusive, democratic, participatory, > multilateral and transparent in nature. > > Indeed, this was already recognized and mandated by the Tunis Agenda in > 2005, as reflected in paragraphs 34, 35, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 69 of the > Agenda. Regrettably, in the six long years that have gone by, no substantial > initiative has been taken by the global community to give effect to this > mandate. > > Meanwhile, the internet has grown exponentially in its reach and scope, > throwing up several new and rapidly emerging challenges in the area of > global internet governance that continue to remain inadequately addressed. > It is becoming increasingly evident that the Internet as a rapidly-evolving > and inherently global medium, needs quick-footed and timely global solutions > and policies, not divergent and fragmented national policies. > > The range and criticality of these pressing global digital issues that > continue to remain unaddressed, are growing rapidly with each passing day. > It is, therefore, urgent and imperative that a multilateral, democratic > participative and transparent global policy-making mechanism be urgently > instituted, as mandated by the Tunis Agenda under the process of ‘Enhanced > Co-operation’, to enable coherent and integrated global policy-making on all > aspects of global Internet governance. > > Operationalizing the Tunis mandate in this regard should not be viewed as an > attempt by governments to “take over” or “regulate and circumscribe” the > internet. Indeed, any such misguided attempt would be antithetical not only > to the internet, but also to human welfare. As a democratic and open society > that has historically welcomed outside influences and believes in openness > to all views and ideas and is wedded to free dialogue, pluralism and > diversity, India attaches great importance to the preservation of the > Internet as an unrestricted, open and free global medium that flourishes > through private innovation and individual creativity and serves as a vehicle > for open communication, access to culture, knowledge, democratization and > development. > > India recognizes the role played by various actors and stakeholders in the > development and continued enrichment of the internet, and is firmly > committed to multi-stakeholderism in internet governance, both at the > national and global level.  India believes that global internet governance > can only be functional, effective and credible if all relevant stake-holders > contribute to, and are consulted in, the process. > > Bearing in mind the need for a transparent, democratic, and multilateral > mechanism that enables all stakeholders to participate in their respective > roles, to address the many cross-cutting international public policy issues > that require attention and are not adequately addressed by current > mechanisms and the need for enhanced cooperation to enable governments, on > an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in > international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, India > proposes the establishment of a new institutional mechanism in the United > Nations for global internet-related policies, to be called the United > Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP).  The intent behind > proposing a multilateral and multi-stakeholder mechanism is not to “control > the internet’’ or allow Governments to have the last word in regulating the > internet, but to make sure that the Internet is governed not unilaterally, > but in an open, democratic, inclusive and participatory manner, with the > participation of all stakeholders, so as to evolve universally acceptable, > and globally harmonized policies in important areas and pave the way for a > credible, constantly evolving, stable and well-functioning Internet that > plays its due role in improving the quality of peoples’ lives everywhere. > > The CIRP shall be mandated to undertake the following tasks: > > i.      Develop and establish international public policies with a view to > ensuring coordination and coherence in cross-cutting Internet-related global > issues; > > ii.     Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and > operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting; > > iii.    Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on > Internet-related public policies; > > iv.     Address developmental issues related to the internet; > > v.      Promote the promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, > civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right > to Development; > > vi.     Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary; and, > > vii.    Crisis management in relation to the Internet. > > The main features of CIRP are provided in the annex to this statement. In > brief, the CIRP will comprise 50 Member States chosen on the basis of > equitable geographical representation, and will meet annually for two > working weeks in Geneva. It will ensure the participation of all relevant > stakeholders by establishing four Advisory Groups, one each for civil > society, the private sector, inter-governmental and international > organizations, and the technical and academic community.  The Advisory > Groups will provide their inputs and recommendations to the CIRP.  The > meetings of CIRP and the advisory groups will be serviced by the UNCTAD > Secretariat that also services the meetings of the Commission on Science and > Technology for Development.  The Internet Governance Forum will provide > inputs to CIRP in the spirit of complementarity between the two.    CIRP > will report directly to the General Assembly and present recommendations for > consideration, adoption and dissemination among all relevant > inter-governmental bodies and international organizations.  CIRP will be > supported by the regular budget of the United Nations; a separate Fund would > be set up by drawing from the domain registration fees collected by various > bodies, in order to mainly finance the Research Wing to be established by > CIRP to support its activities. > > Those familiar with the discourse on global internet governance since the > beginning of the WSIS process at the turn of the millennium, will recognize > that neither the mandated tasks of the CIRP, nor its proposed modalities, > are new.  The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) set up by the UN > Secretary- General had explicitly recognized the institutional gaps in > global internet governance and had proposed four institutional models in its > report to the UN General Assembly in 2005.  The contours of the CIRP, as > proposed above, reflect the common elements in the four WGIG institutional > models.  While the excellent report of the WGIG was much discussed and > deliberated in 2005, unfortunately, no concrete follow-up action was taken > to give effect to its recommendations on the institutional front.  We hope > that this anomaly will be redressed at least six years later, with the > timely establishment of the CIRP. > > In order to operationalize this proposal, India calls for the establishment > of an open-ended working group under the Commission on Science and > Technology for Development for drawing up the detailed terms of reference > for CIRP, with a view to actualizing it within the next 18 months. We are > open to the views and suggestions of all Member States, and stand ready to > work with other delegations to carry forward this proposal, and thus seek to > fill the serious gap in the implementation of the Tunis Agenda, by providing > substance and content to the concept of Enhanced Co-operation enshrined in > the Tunis Agenda. > >                                         Thank you, Mr. Chairman. > > > >                                                              *** > >                                                Annex > > The United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) > > The United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) will have > the following features: > > Membership:   The CIRP will consist of 50 Member States of the United > Nations, chosen/elected on the basis of equitable geographical > representation. It will provide for equitable representation of all UN > Member States, in accordance with established UN principles and practices. > It will have a Bureau consisting of one Chair, three Vice-Chairs and a > Rapporteur. > > Meetings:       The CIRP will meet annually for two working weeks in Geneva, > preferably in May/June, and convene additional meetings, as and when > required.  The UNCTAD Secretariat will provide substantive and logistical > support to the CIRP by servicing these meetings. > >  Multi-stakeholder participation:  Recognizing the need to involve all > stakeholders in Global Internet Governance in their respective roles, the > CIRP shall ensure the participation of all stakeholders recognized in the > Tunis Agenda.  Four Advisory Groups – one each for Civil Society, the > Private Sector, Inter-Governmental and International Organisations, and the > Technical and Academic Community - will be established, to assist and advise > the CIRP.  These Groups would be self-organized, as per agreed principles, > to ensure transparency, representativity and inclusiveness.  The Advisory > Groups will meet annually in Geneva and in conjunction with any additional > meetings of the CIRP. Their meetings will be held back-to- back with the > meetings of the CIRP, so that they are able to provide their inputs and > recommendations in a timely manner, to the CIRP. > > Reporting: The CIRP will report directly to the UN General Assembly > annually, on its meetings and present recommendations in the areas of policy > and implementation for consideration, adoption and dissemination to all > relevant inter-governmental bodies and international organizations. . > > Research Wing: The Internet is a rapidly-evolving and dynamic medium that > throws up urgent and rapidly-evolving challenges that need timely solutions. > In order to deal effectively and prudently with these emerging issues in a > timely manner, it would be vital to have a well-resourced Research Wing > attached to the CIRP to provide ready and comprehensive background material, > analysis and inputs to the CIRP, as required. > > Links with the IGF:  Recognizing the value of the Internet Governance Forum > as an open, unique forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on Internet > issues, the deliberations in the IGF along with any inputs, background > information and analysis it may provide, will be taken as inputs for > consideration of the CIRP.  An improved and strengthened IGF that can serve > as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy > inputs to the CIRP, will ensure a stronger and more effective > complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF. > > Budget:  Like other UN bodies, the CIRP should be supported by the regular > budget of the United Nations. In addition, keeping in view its unique > multi-stakeholder format for inclusive participation, and the need for a > well-resourced Research Wing and regular meetings, a separate Fund should > also be set up drawing from the domain registration fees collected by > various bodies involved in the technical functioning of the Internet, > especially in terms of names and addresses. > > *** > > Excerpts from the Tunis Agenda > > Paragraph 34 of the Tunis Agenda defines Internet Governance as “the > development and application by governments, the private sector and civil > society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, > decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use > of the Internet”. > > Paragraph 35 reaffirms the respective roles of stakeholders as follows: “(a) > Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign > right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international > Internet-related public policy issues”. (b) The private sector has had, and > should continue to have, an important role in the development of the > Internet, both in the technical an economic fields. (c) Civil society has > also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community > level, and should continue to play such a role. (d) Intergovernmental > organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in > the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. (e) International > organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in > the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > policies.” > > While delineating the respective roles of stakeholders, Paragraph 56 > recognizes the need for an inclusive, multi-stakeholder approach by > affirming that “The Internet remains a highly dynamic medium and therefore > any framework and mechanisms designed to deal with Internet governance > should be inclusive and responsive to the exponential growth and fast > evolution of the Internet as a common platform for the development of > multiple applications”. > > Paragraph 58 recognizes “that Internet governance includes more than > Internet naming and addressing. It also includes other significant public > policy issues such as, inter alia, critical Internet resources, the security > and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and issues pertaining > to the use of the Internet”. > > Paragraph 59 further recognizes that “Internet governance includes social, > economic and technical issues including affordability, reliability and > quality of service”.  Paragraph 60 further recognizes that “there are many > cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and > are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms”. > > Paragraph 61 of the Tunis Agenda therefore concludes that “We are convinced > that there is a need to initiate, and reinforce, as appropriate, a > transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with the participation of > governments, private sector, civil society and international organisations, > in their respective roles.  This process could envisage creation of a > suitable framework or mechanisms, where justified, thus spurring the ongoing > and active evolution of the current arrangements in order to synergize the > efforts in this regard”. > > Paragraph 69 further recognizes “the need for enhanced cooperation in the > future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles > and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to > the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, > that do not impact on international public policy issues”. > > *** > > On Friday 28 October 2011 11:45 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 28/10/11 13:17, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > This is from Kieren MacCarthy's article: > > Better to go to the source, for more details and less hyperbole - such as > the fact that India is requesting a working group of the CSTD to draw up the > detailed terms of the proposed new body.  If Brazil and South Africa do come > on board, then this is exactly what we have been waiting to respond to in > depth.  Rather than simply issuing shrill cries about "the UN taking over > the Internet", and whether we ultimately decide to oppose this proposal > outright or to engage with and improve it, we will need to contribute > constructively through this (hopefully multi-stakeholder) CSTD working > group, always bearing in mind that the alternative is the status quo. > > See http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/gaef3319.doc.htm. > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 29 04:33:16 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 14:03:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet In-Reply-To: References: <4EAA4897.1040709@ciroap.org> <4EAA8330.7020902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4EABBA4C.8090808@itforchange.net> On Saturday 29 October 2011 01:43 PM, McTim wrote: > Parminder, > > Is there a link to the actual proposal given to the GA or just text of a speech? > McTim, the whole proposal is contained in the text of the speech and its annex as enclosed in my earlier email. There is no other proposal document. Will respond to other parts of your email separately, parminder > > Going by the speech alone, it sure looks like a "takeover" to me, to wit: > > > ii. Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and > >> operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting; >> > vi. Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary; and, > > vii. Crisis management in relation to the Internet. > > > I've just chosen the top 3, but all of these functions are done by > other bodies, are done quite well and have been done for a long time. > > quoting ISOC: > > "The Internet model of decentralized architecture and distributed > responsibility for development, operation, and management has been the > catalyst for boundless innovation and creativity. " > > I'm one of those people who does not consider that "gaps" in 'social' > public policies re; Internet are sufficient to merit such a draconian > "multilateral" body. > > In other words, the remedy is far worse than the illness. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 29 04:35:20 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 14:05:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet In-Reply-To: <4EABBA4C.8090808@itforchange.net> References: <4EAA4897.1040709@ciroap.org> <4EAA8330.7020902@itforchange.net> <4EABBA4C.8090808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4EABBAC8.1070501@itforchange.net> Also, there doesnt seem to be any official link to the document anywhere, at least at present. parminder On Saturday 29 October 2011 02:03 PM, parminder wrote: > On Saturday 29 October 2011 01:43 PM, McTim wrote: >> Parminder, >> >> Is there a link to the actual proposal given to the GA or just text of a speech? >> > > McTim, the whole proposal is contained in the text of the speech and > its annex as enclosed in my earlier email. There is no other proposal > document. Will respond to other parts of your email separately, parminder >> Going by the speech alone, it sure looks like a "takeover" to me, to wit: >> >> >> ii. Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and >> >>> operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting; >>> >> vi. Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary; and, >> >> vii. Crisis management in relation to the Internet. >> >> >> I've just chosen the top 3, but all of these functions are done by >> other bodies, are done quite well and have been done for a long time. >> >> quoting ISOC: >> >> "The Internet model of decentralized architecture and distributed >> responsibility for development, operation, and management has been the >> catalyst for boundless innovation and creativity. " >> >> I'm one of those people who does not consider that "gaps" in 'social' >> public policies re; Internet are sufficient to merit such a draconian >> "multilateral" body. >> >> In other words, the remedy is far worse than the illness. >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Oct 29 06:55:46 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 08:55:46 -0200 Subject: [governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet In-Reply-To: <4EABBAC8.1070501@itforchange.net> References: <4EAA4897.1040709@ciroap.org> <4EAA8330.7020902@itforchange.net> <4EABBA4C.8090808@itforchange.net> <4EABBAC8.1070501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4EABDBB2.9070502@cafonso.ca> McT, the proposal is attached in PDF. --c.a. On 10/29/2011 06:35 AM, parminder wrote: > Also, there doesnt seem to be any official link to the document > anywhere, at least at present. parminder > > On Saturday 29 October 2011 02:03 PM, parminder wrote: >> On Saturday 29 October 2011 01:43 PM, McTim wrote: >>> Parminder, >>> >>> Is there a link to the actual proposal given to the GA or just text >>> of a speech? >>> >> >> McTim, the whole proposal is contained in the text of the speech and >> its annex as enclosed in my earlier email. There is no other proposal >> document. Will respond to other parts of your email separately, parminder >>> Going by the speech alone, it sure looks like a "takeover" to me, to >>> wit: >>> >>> >>> ii. Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and >>> >>>> operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards >>>> setting; >>>> >>> vi. Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where >>> necessary; and, >>> >>> vii. Crisis management in relation to the Internet. >>> >>> >>> I've just chosen the top 3, but all of these functions are done by >>> other bodies, are done quite well and have been done for a long time. >>> >>> quoting ISOC: >>> >>> "The Internet model of decentralized architecture and distributed >>> responsibility for development, operation, and management has been the >>> catalyst for boundless innovation and creativity. " >>> >>> I'm one of those people who does not consider that "gaps" in 'social' >>> public policies re; Internet are sufficient to merit such a draconian >>> "multilateral" body. >>> >>> In other words, the remedy is far worse than the illness. >>> >>> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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: india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 148809 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Sat Oct 29 07:35:14 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:35:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 Message-ID: Hi, This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil society representation, though a fair amount of business - the business especially who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of so called security. Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Oct 29 07:40:38 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 14:40:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet In-Reply-To: <4EABDBB2.9070502@cafonso.ca> References: <4EAA4897.1040709@ciroap.org> <4EAA8330.7020902@itforchange.net> <4EABBA4C.8090808@itforchange.net> <4EABBAC8.1070501@itforchange.net> <4EABDBB2.9070502@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > McT, the proposal is attached in PDF. so not much different than IBSA then...taking money from " the domain registration fees collected by various bodies involved in the technical functioning of the Internet, especially in terms of names and addresses. " Multilateral only, with only token participation from non-states, 50 States only as members, mission creep built-in, etc. I agree with Ron Koven, given the lesser of two evils, I would prefer the status quo to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs (apologies for metaphor mixing). -- 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 renate.bloem at gmail.com Sat Oct 29 11:00:07 2011 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 17:00:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet In-Reply-To: <4EABDBB2.9070502@cafonso.ca> References: <4EAA4897.1040709@ciroap.org> <4EAA8330.7020902@itforchange.net> <4EABBA4C.8090808@itforchange.net> <4EABBAC8.1070501@itforchange.net> <4EABDBB2.9070502@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5531D1C62E3C4FF8A32DCB6009B5FD5E@PortableRenateBloem> Hi all, from lurking.... Very interesting proposal, immediately jumping to become a GA subsidiary, bypassing the CSTD... Renate -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: samedi, 29. octobre 2011 12:56 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet McT, the proposal is attached in PDF. --c.a. On 10/29/2011 06:35 AM, parminder wrote: > Also, there doesnt seem to be any official link to the document > anywhere, at least at present. parminder > > On Saturday 29 October 2011 02:03 PM, parminder wrote: >> On Saturday 29 October 2011 01:43 PM, McTim wrote: >>> Parminder, >>> >>> Is there a link to the actual proposal given to the GA or just text >>> of a speech? >>> >> >> McTim, the whole proposal is contained in the text of the speech and >> its annex as enclosed in my earlier email. There is no other proposal >> document. Will respond to other parts of your email separately, parminder >>> Going by the speech alone, it sure looks like a "takeover" to me, to >>> wit: >>> >>> >>> ii. Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and >>> >>>> operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards >>>> setting; >>>> >>> vi. Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where >>> necessary; and, >>> >>> vii. Crisis management in relation to the Internet. >>> >>> >>> I've just chosen the top 3, but all of these functions are done by >>> other bodies, are done quite well and have been done for a long time. >>> >>> quoting ISOC: >>> >>> "The Internet model of decentralized architecture and distributed >>> responsibility for development, operation, and management has been the >>> catalyst for boundless innovation and creativity. " >>> >>> I'm one of those people who does not consider that "gaps" in 'social' >>> public policies re; Internet are sufficient to merit such a draconian >>> "multilateral" body. >>> >>> In other words, the remedy is far worse than the illness. >>> >>> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Oct 29 12:19:28 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:19:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am told offline that perhaps I am referring to the wrong event. but I understood there was a major policy making event in the UK in the next month or so, that we should be watching out for. So if anyone has the correct reference, I would be grateful. The one I heard about sounds like a monstrosity of governments siting together and deciding on cybersecurty policies without Civil Society present and hence without anyone representing the people's rights. So maybe I am wrong and there is no event, but I definitely wanted to follow up on the info. avri On 29 Oct 2011, at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. > > http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ > > As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil society representation, though a fair amount of business - the business especially who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of so called security. > > Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? > > avri > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Oct 29 12:23:38 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:23:38 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C695@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> here it is http://www.chathamhouse.org/research/international-security/current-projects/london-conference-cyberspace-1-2-november-2011 wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Sa 29.10.2011 18:19 An: IGC Betreff: Re: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 I am told offline that perhaps I am referring to the wrong event. but I understood there was a major policy making event in the UK in the next month or so, that we should be watching out for. So if anyone has the correct reference, I would be grateful. The one I heard about sounds like a monstrosity of governments siting together and deciding on cybersecurty policies without Civil Society present and hence without anyone representing the people's rights. So maybe I am wrong and there is no event, but I definitely wanted to follow up on the info. avri On 29 Oct 2011, at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. > > http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ > > As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil society representation, though a fair amount of business - the business especially who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of so called security. > > Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? > > avri > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Sat Oct 29 12:33:13 2011 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:33:13 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C695@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C695@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4EAC2AC9.8050609@eff.org> Greetings, I would appreciate any report of the meeting, too!!! If someone is happen to be there! pls. share it with us! On 10/29/11 11:23 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > here it is > > http://www.chathamhouse.org/research/international-security/current-projects/london-conference-cyberspace-1-2-november-2011 > > wolfgang > ________________________________ > > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: Sa 29.10.2011 18:19 > An: IGC > Betreff: Re: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 > > > > > I am told offline that perhaps I am referring to the wrong event. > but I understood there was a major policy making event in the UK in the next month or so, that we should be watching out for. > So if anyone has the correct reference, I would be grateful. > > The one I heard about sounds like a monstrosity of governments siting together and deciding on cybersecurty policies without Civil Society present and hence without anyone representing the people's rights. > > So maybe I am wrong and there is no event, but I definitely wanted to follow up on the info. > > avri > > > > On 29 Oct 2011, at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. >> >> http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ >> >> As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil society representation, though a fair amount of business - the business especially who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of so called security. >> >> Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? >> >> avri >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 qshatti at gmail.com Sat Oct 29 13:15:26 2011 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 20:15:26 +0300 Subject: [governance] UNESCO General Conference on Internet ethics In-Reply-To: <179da.6aed3a55.3bdbddb0@aol.com> References: <179da.6aed3a55.3bdbddb0@aol.com> Message-ID: <53CB4711-6FE4-40AD-BE95-0545CAD17F55@gmail.com> Dear All: I will be attending the meeting, I have read the code of the code of ethics, I did not see its content alarming but if there is some reservations I would be more than happy to voice it out. Regards, Qusai AlShatti Sent from my iPhone On 28/10/2011, at 13:28, KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: > Dear All -- > > Consideration of the UNESCO Communication program starts in commission hearing at UNESCO's General Conference on Nov. 1 at 10 a.m. and continues through Nov. 4. > > The main potential trouble is over a resolution endorsing a code of ethics for Internet. The document is available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002126/212696e.pdf > > The actual code of ethics is an annex to the document, at the same address. > > Best regards, Rony Koven > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From divina.meigs at orange.fr Sat Oct 29 13:26:05 2011 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 19:26:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] UNESCO General Conference on Internet ethics In-Reply-To: <53CB4711-6FE4-40AD-BE95-0545CAD17F55@gmail.com> References: <179da.6aed3a55.3bdbddb0@aol.com> <53CB4711-6FE4-40AD-BE95-0545CAD17F55@gmail.com> Message-ID: <32889425.77246.1319909165876.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k10> dear all i will be attending the meeting as well. The code of ethics is an outcome of the IFAP programme. I participated in writing its first version (two years ago), as an outcome of WSIS action line 10 on ethics. It has been revised considerably by the member states and the current version is much shorter. It tries to be balanced in its approach and incorporates some of the claims of civil society, in terms of paying attention to non-proprietary media, social justice, etc. best divina > Message du 29/10/11 19:16 > De : "Qusai Al-Shatti" > A : "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "KovenRonald at aol.com" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] UNESCO General Conference on Internet ethics > > Dear All: > I will be attending the meeting, I have read the code of the code of ethics, I did not see its content alarming but if there is some reservations I would be more than happy to voice it out. > > Regards, > > Qusai AlShatti > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 28/10/2011, at 13:28, KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: > > > Dear All -- > > > > Consideration of the UNESCO Communication program starts in commission hearing at UNESCO's General Conference on Nov. 1 at 10 a.m. and continues through Nov. 4. > > > > The main potential trouble is over a resolution endorsing a code of ethics for Internet. The document is available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002126/212696e.pdf > > > > The actual code of ethics is an annex to the document, at the same address. > > > > Best regards, Rony Koven > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Oct 29 15:20:08 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 19:20:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <4EAAB6F3.3010002@cis-india.org> References: <20111028054943.GA25885@vortex.com>,<398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4EAAB6F3.3010002@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash > > I love how WSIS and IGF "took over" the Internet, and I look forward to > further "takeovers" of the Internet in the days to come. I wonder if > folks will now start #OccupyTheInternet > Cute. Some history for Pranesh, since he is evidently unfamiliar with it. WSIS did indeed try to "take over" ICANN, it just failed because of the people and arguments you now reject. Although it was always an exaggeration to claim that the UN was trying to take over the Internet as a whole, these fears were exaggerated NOT because many governments did not, in fact, want to do that but simply because they lacked the capability to do so. And they lacked that capability because most of Internet and telecoms is in the hands of private companies responding to market forces - something that the same people also tend to reject. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and probably other states are on record as favoring the elimination of ICANN and RIRs and their replacement by intergovernmental governance mechanisms. India has publicly embraced replacement of the RIR model with a national internet registry model. All of IBSA asserted during, and after, WSIS that they prefer a national sovereignty based model for internet governance. All of IBSA, and even the EC and other developed states, believe in the fallacy that states can make "public policy" for the Internet outside of an agreed constitutional and legal framework that carefully defines and delimits their powers and protects both the substantive and due process rights of individuals. And now you suggest that a proposal by a rising state to throw this all into the hands of the UN is some harmless thing. Wake up. People in civil society, such as Jeremy, who rightly see some of the hypocrisy underlying defenses of the status quo but who fail to see the far more serious threat of destroying the more open, organically Developed Internet Institutions (ODII) by sovereignty-based intergovernmental hierarchies are deeply out of touch with political reality on a global basis, or are letting their anger get the better of them and losing perspective completely. We do not have to choose between the status quo and the UN (an earlier, kruftier status quo). Everyone needs to write that on the chalkboard 50 times. One thing I have noticed is that the people who feel this way are generally not people with first-hand experience of ICANN, and thus do not see how governments in the GAC behave. GAC's behavior is relevant because it shows you how govts actually intervene in a MS or more decentralized environment. How do they behave? Here is one good example http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/29/4909356.html Here is another http://www.komaitis.org/1/post/2011/10/icann-41-the-fight-over-multistakeholderism.html#comments Govts amplify and reinforce the policy demands of vested interests and of state security/law enforcement. Sure, there will always be inequalities of power in any political economy, but intergovernmentalism is nothing more than a carving up of the space among the winners at the national level. Social democrats who see them as the "voice of the people" need to get a better grip on the empirical realities of how states actually behave. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Oct 29 15:59:39 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 19:59:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20111028054943.GA25885@vortex.com>,<398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4EAAB6F3.3010002@cis-india.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA6F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I want to amend my comments with one very important concession to the IBSA/CIRP advocates: If CIRP can make the ICANN GAC go away and die...er, become incorporated into it, it may find stronger support vibes emanating from Syracuse. > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:20 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Pranesh Prakash; Lee W McKnight > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of > Internet > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > > Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash > > > > I love how WSIS and IGF "took over" the Internet, and I look forward > > to further "takeovers" of the Internet in the days to come. I wonder > > if folks will now start #OccupyTheInternet > > > > Cute. > > Some history for Pranesh, since he is evidently unfamiliar with it. > > WSIS did indeed try to "take over" ICANN, it just failed because of the > people and arguments you now reject. Although it was always an > exaggeration to claim that the UN was trying to take over the Internet > as a whole, these fears were exaggerated NOT because many governments > did not, in fact, want to do that but simply because they lacked the > capability to do so. And they lacked that capability because most of > Internet and telecoms is in the hands of private companies responding to > market forces - something that the same people also tend to reject. > > China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and probably other states are on record as > favoring the elimination of ICANN and RIRs and their replacement by > intergovernmental governance mechanisms. > > India has publicly embraced replacement of the RIR model with a national > internet registry model. > > All of IBSA asserted during, and after, WSIS that they prefer a national > sovereignty based model for internet governance. All of IBSA, and even > the EC and other developed states, believe in the fallacy that states > can make "public policy" for the Internet outside of an agreed > constitutional and legal framework that carefully defines and delimits > their powers and protects both the substantive and due process rights of > individuals. > > And now you suggest that a proposal by a rising state to throw this all > into the hands of the UN is some harmless thing. > > Wake up. > > People in civil society, such as Jeremy, who rightly see some of the > hypocrisy underlying defenses of the status quo but who fail to see the > far more serious threat of destroying the more open, organically > Developed Internet Institutions (ODII) by sovereignty-based > intergovernmental hierarchies are deeply out of touch with political > reality on a global basis, or are letting their anger get the better of > them and losing perspective completely. > > We do not have to choose between the status quo and the UN (an earlier, > kruftier status quo). Everyone needs to write that on the chalkboard 50 > times. > > One thing I have noticed is that the people who feel this way are > generally not people with first-hand experience of ICANN, and thus do > not see how governments in the GAC behave. GAC's behavior is relevant > because it shows you how govts actually intervene in a MS or more > decentralized environment. How do they behave? > > Here is one good example > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/29/4909356.html > Here is another > http://www.komaitis.org/1/post/2011/10/icann-41-the-fight-over- > multistakeholderism.html#comments > > Govts amplify and reinforce the policy demands of vested interests and > of state security/law enforcement. Sure, there will always be > inequalities of power in any political economy, but intergovernmentalism > is nothing more than a carving up of the space among the winners at the > national level. Social democrats who see them as the "voice of the > people" need to get a better grip on the empirical realities of how > states actually behave. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Oct 29 18:10:48 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 22:10:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] a fair assessment of the UN CIRP Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CB22@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/10/29/4929042.html Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.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 Sat Oct 29 18:26:55 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:56:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20111028054943.GA25885@vortex.com>,<398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4EAAB6F3.3010002@cis-india.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4EAC7DAF.5050203@itforchange.net> Milton First of all, as I expected, you and other critics are sticking solely to the 'oversight over technical policy making' part of the CIRP proposal which is just one function of the proposed CIRP among seven functions. Not many pf us think that technical policy aspect of the Internet is the most important one. And Tunis Agenda did make the distinction clearly. CIRP is more about globally applicable public policy making and facilitating treaties and conventions, something which at present is done by organisations like OECD and CoE, for the whole world, which makes it a rather undemocratic exercise. That reminds me to ask you again: have you ever unleashed your pet rants against governments and inter-gov policy devleopment systems at the OECD's Committee for Information, Computer and Communication Policy (CICCP) which regularly makes Internet related pulbic policies through an 'inter gov' policy development system. I understand that you have worked closely with OECD and CoE's policy development activites including as an invited expert. Why do your pet rants fall silent in those corridors of super global power..... I have been asking you this question for quite some while without a response. Are your invectives only for the poor developing countries? Am at an airport and will address other issues of your emails in a few hours. parmidner On Sunday 30 October 2011 12:50 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On >> Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash >> >> I love how WSIS and IGF "took over" the Internet, and I look forward to >> further "takeovers" of the Internet in the days to come. I wonder if >> folks will now start #OccupyTheInternet >> >> > Cute. > > Some history for Pranesh, since he is evidently unfamiliar with it. > > WSIS did indeed try to "take over" ICANN, it just failed because of the people and arguments you now reject. Although it was always an exaggeration to claim that the UN was trying to take over the Internet as a whole, these fears were exaggerated NOT because many governments did not, in fact, want to do that but simply because they lacked the capability to do so. And they lacked that capability because most of Internet and telecoms is in the hands of private companies responding to market forces - something that the same people also tend to reject. > > China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and probably other states are on record as favoring the elimination of ICANN and RIRs and their replacement by intergovernmental governance mechanisms. > > India has publicly embraced replacement of the RIR model with a national internet registry model. > > All of IBSA asserted during, and after, WSIS that they prefer a national sovereignty based model for internet governance. All of IBSA, and even the EC and other developed states, believe in the fallacy that states can make "public policy" for the Internet outside of an agreed constitutional and legal framework that carefully defines and delimits their powers and protects both the substantive and due process rights of individuals. > > And now you suggest that a proposal by a rising state to throw this all into the hands of the UN is some harmless thing. > > Wake up. > > People in civil society, such as Jeremy, who rightly see some of the hypocrisy underlying defenses of the status quo but who fail to see the far more serious threat of destroying the more open, organically Developed Internet Institutions (ODII) by sovereignty-based intergovernmental hierarchies are deeply out of touch with political reality on a global basis, or are letting their anger get the better of them and losing perspective completely. > > We do not have to choose between the status quo and the UN (an earlier, kruftier status quo). Everyone needs to write that on the chalkboard 50 times. > > One thing I have noticed is that the people who feel this way are generally not people with first-hand experience of ICANN, and thus do not see how governments in the GAC behave. GAC's behavior is relevant because it shows you how govts actually intervene in a MS or more decentralized environment. How do they behave? > > Here is one good example > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/29/4909356.html > Here is another > http://www.komaitis.org/1/post/2011/10/icann-41-the-fight-over-multistakeholderism.html#comments > > Govts amplify and reinforce the policy demands of vested interests and of state security/law enforcement. Sure, there will always be inequalities of power in any political economy, but intergovernmentalism is nothing more than a carving up of the space among the winners at the national level. Social democrats who see them as the "voice of the people" need to get a better grip on the empirical realities of how states actually behave. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Oct 30 03:14:18 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:14:18 +0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20111028054943.GA25885@vortex.com>,<398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4EAAB6F3.3010002@cis-india.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4EACF94A.4050307@ciroap.org> On 10/30/2011 03:20 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > People in civil society, such as Jeremy, who rightly see some of the > hypocrisy underlying defenses of the status quo but who fail to see > the far more serious threat of destroying the more open, organically > Developed Internet Institutions (ODII) by sovereignty-based > intergovernmental hierarchies are deeply out of touch with political > reality on a global basis, or are letting their anger get the better > of them and losing perspective completely. We do not have to choose > between the status quo and the UN (an earlier, kruftier status quo). > Everyone needs to write that on the chalkboard 50 times. In fact my attitude to this proposal is informed very strongly by political reality. You might recall that the IGC's original response to WGIG's IGF proposal was that the the IGF should be situated outside of the United Nations, too. If it had been, would it even still exist now? Yet the IGF is not the earlier, kruftier version of the UN that the IGC perhaps feared when advocating that it be situated outside the UN. For the last few years I have taken heat for my idea that the IGF, if it is to be able to make recommendations as its mandate requires, should before allow governments (and the other stakeholder groups too) a power of veto over those recommendations before they are issued. That position, and my response to the CIRP proposal,* are influenced strongly by the same political realities. I am not one of those social democrats of whom you speak, who believe that intergovernmental organisations represent the will of the people (in fact, I don't even know any such social democrats). But I do accept that "enhanced cooperation" was never going to be just the IGF on steroids: it was always going to be government-led. As such, situating it in the UN is not preferable, merely inevitable. The UN is, doubtless, as corrupt as the United States Congress or the Chinese Community Party. But to its credit, it does play such plutocracies and dictatorships against each other, resulting in the curbing of their worst excesses. Consider for example, how much worse the WIPO Copyright Treaties or ACTA would have been, if the United States, EU and Japan had been able to draft these on their own. So even if the CIRP was purely intergovernmental, we might still expect that its policies may be "somewhat less bad than the status quo". But because of its multi-stakeholder character, we can hope for much more: that civil society will finally have a and positive real impact on policies such as those that are being developed right now, outside of any transnational multi-stakeholder framework, that are destroying the Internet as we know it. * http://jere.my/l/1t -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @Consumers_Int Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2309 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Oct 30 03:38:10 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 07:38:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet In-Reply-To: <5531D1C62E3C4FF8A32DCB6009B5FD5E@PortableRenateBloem> References: <4EAA4897.1040709@ciroap.org> <4EAA8330.7020902@itforchange.net> <4EABBA4C.8090808@itforchange.net> <4EABBAC8.1070501@itforchange.net> <4EABDBB2.9070502@cafonso.ca> <5531D1C62E3C4FF8A32DCB6009B5FD5E@PortableRenateBloem> Message-ID: In message <5531D1C62E3C4FF8A32DCB6009B5FD5E at PortableRenateBloem>, at 17:00:07 on Sat, 29 Oct 2011, "Renate Bloem (Gmail)" writes >Very interesting proposal, immediately jumping to become a GA subsidiary, >bypassing the CSTD... Did you (and indeed does India) mean "bypassing ECOSOC"? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Oct 30 03:43:01 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 10:43:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <4EACF94A.4050307@ciroap.org> References: <20111028054943.GA25885@vortex.com> <398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4EAAB6F3.3010002@cis-india.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4EACF94A.4050307@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Jeremy, On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > So even if the CIRP was purely intergovernmental, we might still expect that > its policies may be "somewhat less bad than the status quo". But because of > its multi-stakeholder It is multi-lateral in that only nation states get to decide. character, we can hope for much more: that civil > society will finally have a and positive real impact on policies such as > those that are being developed right now, outside of any transnational > multi-stakeholder framework, that are destroying the Internet as we know it. > > * http://jere.my/l/1t I think you are being naive when you write: "The Indian proposal, on the other hand, could at least democratise these decisions to some degree. If a UN Committee for Internet-Related Policies, adequately linked to multi-stakeholder public sphere, were able to set global norms for the Internet in an adequately open and inclusive manner, then neither the US government, corrupted by big-pocketed IP rights-holders, nor repressive governments such as China, would be able to regulate the Internet in isolation from these norms." As the USG or any gov't will want to continue to be sovereign re: it's own internal laws and regulations. I don't see gov'ts lining up to sign a treaty that will limit their ability to make laws re; Internet in their own territories. -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Sun Oct 30 04:10:51 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:10:51 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Alternative to status quo (was Re: India Proposes...) In-Reply-To: (message from Daniel Kalchev on Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:35:52 +0000) References: Message-ID: <20111030081051.3810F15C110@quill.bollow.ch> Daniel, you certainly make a valid point. The drafting process for proposed resolutions of the Parliament that I'm proposing should not be restricted to the people who run for election. That should be a bottom up process in which everyone is invited to participate, with hopefully many experts participating, a process which results in a number of competing proposal texts for each of the areas where a decision of the proposed Parliament is needed. The role of the Parliament would be to debate these proposals and make the decision of either choosing one or a decision that consists of choosing none for now (with the debates being public and providing guidance on how the proposals may need to be combined or otherwise modified). Relying on elected representatives for decision-making may not be a mechanism for reaching perfectly optimal decisions, but I know of no other process that is capable of making credible decisions in the public interest even against the will of special interests that have essentially unlimited financial resources. Nota bene, I'm not looking for the proposed Parliament to replace any of the existing specialized Internet Governance institutions, with the exception of some aspects of ICANN. But it should in my opinion (eventually, after it's well-established) replace the US government oversight role, as well as working on other areas of technology governance including technology for development frameworks and climate protection. Greetings, Norbert > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lists.cpsr.org; > s=npogroups; t=1319823408; > bh=UKc4OXgpxtQ9ZIlZgys7vEoZK9z+zX1Kg1JrfzSImT4=; l=3918; > h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:To: > Subject:Reply-To; > b=HgDa9hyo+d2zsDWEXAj2seZ9Z1Z2DdhaBdgv0pHcxiiwCts0C8ulaNKA2HbqMYpBO > UdW3iTglnfQDRTm6gvKxtMr57NABups6AgPzGOtpsur3Z6CDE0YGDhPZXACwT0uvmX > DDS02SbDlnuMtp/KFbAmbEtFxru1GctDvtgPHmhs= > X-Spam-Status: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-1.967, required 5, AWL -0.44, > BAYES_00 -1.90, FRT_ADOBE2 0.88, RP_MATCHES_RCVD -0.50) > Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Cc: , "'Norbert Bollow'" > From: Daniel Kalchev > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:35:52 +0000 > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Daniel Kalchev > List-Owner: > > Mike, > > I might have overstated my concerns. Of course, I do my best and encourage everyone in my environment to try to work via procedures and processes for the better outcome. This usually works, especially more recently as those politicians learn that brute force attempts are usually unsuccessful. > > Perhaps my statement indeed was too condensed.. > > But experts are rarely interested in political carrier, mostly because they see the fulfillment of their vision in what they do (best). > > Daniel > > On Oct 28, 2011, at 13:56 , michael gurstein wrote: > > > Daniel, > > > > I think it is most regrettable that your experience with governance and > > governing has evidently left you with very deep scars, resentments, and > > cynicism. > > > > You should know however, that your experience is by no means universal and > > my own experience is to have had the opportunity to know, work with and > > share the benefits of the outcomes of politics and politicians who were > > dedicated, public spirited and honest to a fault. > > > > Certainly I have known politicians of the kind you are referring to, and > > they unfortunately come to ascendency when citizens are unwilling or unable > > to act effectively in the public sphere but I think it is extremely > > dangerous to suggest that we act in a completely defensive and cynical > > posture towards all structures of governance and those who occupy them. > > > > It seems to me that when confronted with the structures and individuals of > > the type you are pointing to, the response should be to redouble our > > individual and collaborative efforts towards effective processes rather than > > to look to have governance turned over to the unelected, the unaccountable > > and the more or less completely opaque. > > > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > > Of Daniel Kalchev > > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 6:23 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow > > Subject: Re: [governance] Alternative to status quo (was Re: India > > Proposes...) > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 2011, at 11:43 , Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > >> KovenRonald at aol.com wrote: > >> > >>> It is in that context that I advocate "leaving well enough alone," not > > out > >>> of any desire to perpetuate neo-colonialist domination. The present setup > > is > >>> indeed messy and theoretically most unsatisfactory. The problem is, what > > is > >>> in practice the real alternative ? > >> > >> IMO, as I said before, the real alternative starts with the creation > >> of an International Parliament consisting of people who are elected in > >> free and open, worldwide elections. > > > > > > Except that the capable people will never, ever run for election. > > > > Those who will be elected will be the next wave of opportunists. > > > > Daniel____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sun Oct 30 04:33:20 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:33:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: <4EAC2AC9.8050609@eff.org> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C695@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4EAC2AC9.8050609@eff.org> Message-ID: Thanks Avri for raising this and Wolfgang for the info. Though the program mentions NGO, I could find few from the speakers. Gov of Japan will send Vice minister form Foreign ministry according to the newspaper. I guess this will be rather a talk show than any substantive policy-making debate, yet who knows. Izumi Katitza Rodriguez katitza at eff.org: > Greetings, > > I would appreciate any report of the meeting, too!!! If someone is happen to be there! pls. share it with us! > > On 10/29/11 11:23 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> >> here it is >> >> http://www.chathamhouse.org/research/international-security/current-projects/london-conference-cyberspace-1-2-november-2011 >> >> wolfgang -- Sent via Mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Oct 30 04:49:51 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:49:51 +1200 Subject: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C695@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4EAC2AC9.8050609@eff.org> Message-ID: At least Fiji's Cabinet (although not elected) as we are in military rule endorses the multi-stakeholder model and approach that the Fiji Cyber Security Working Group is currently using. Because of the nature of the political climate, it means extraordinary levels of diplomacy and emotional intelligence and education and awareness. Sala On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Thanks Avri for raising this and Wolfgang for the info. Though the program > mentions NGO, I could find few from the speakers. Gov of Japan will send > Vice minister form Foreign ministry according to the newspaper. > > I guess this will be rather a talk show than any substantive policy-making > debate, yet who knows. > > Izumi > > Katitza Rodriguez katitza at eff.org: > > > Greetings, > > > > I would appreciate any report of the meeting, too!!! If someone is > happen to be there! pls. share it with us! > > > > On 10/29/11 11:23 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > >> > >> here it is > >> > >> > http://www.chathamhouse.org/research/international-security/current-projects/london-conference-cyberspace-1-2-november-2011 > >> > >> wolfgang > > > -- > Sent via Mobile > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Oct 30 05:16:07 2011 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 10:16:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Indian proposal => "IGF improvements" In-Reply-To: References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <549EFAF4-B302-4E15-B666-7C167CE71AB8@uzh.ch> Hi Marilia Since you and our other reps will soon be in Geneva for the WGIGF meeting, it seems timely to circle back to this thread. On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I would like to focus on what Bill has mentioned. I believe it is a very important topic, given the fact that we are close to the CSTD WG meeting and "outcomes" will be an important topic: > > > This is a barrier I wish we could somehow overcome. As long as developing country intergovernmental efforts on EC and in the ITU appear to have intergovernmental control as their end game and the IGF is getting tactically linked to this as you noted, one imagines the TC, business, and a lot of governments will remain wedded to the fear that an IGF that does more than meet and chat once a year would necessarily get leveraged to advance that agenda. And CS proponents of more intensive, structured and "outcome" oriented dialogues will remain isolated and frustrated. If intergovernmental control could be taken off the table, at least outside the ITU, that might help to make "IGF improvements" a less divisive topic. > > I think we should separate the two topics, IGF improvements and enhanced cooperation. They are related, but they are different topics. And I personally think that a more outcome oriented IGF would be beneficial with our without the implementation of enhanced cooperation. I wish it were otherwise, but they have been very closely related since CS first started advocating an IGF in 2004 and will be more so going forward. We were told by several people here that nobody should be concerned about the Rio proposal because it was just a draft and of course the 3 governments would be fully taking on board the opposition voiced by virtually everyone who spoke to it in the Nairobi CIR session. I therefore asked why the Tshwane Declaration didn't just come out and take the UN oversight body concept off the table if that was true. Now we have the answer—it wasn't. Irrespective of any stakeholder views, the Indian government has ploughed ahead and formally proposed almost precisely what the "just a draft" said (actually it's worse—the Indian language adds to the list of functions, "Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies"…this to be done by 50 governments that meets for two weeks a year for ten six hour days). And they did this in a purely intergovernmental setting where stakeholder views are duly ignored. One might add that I asked the indian representative twice on stage whether/when a proposal might go to the GA and got evasive answers. Since this was done a couple weeks after Nairobi, one has to assume that they'd already decided and just weren't going to say it in a multistakeholder setting where people might raise questions, which strikes me as rather indicative of how we can expect all this to be handled going forward. So now we have been allowed to see the Indian proposal, and it says inter alia that "An improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP, will ensure a stronger and more effective complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF." So let's no longer pretend that the two issues can be viewed separately. The Indian proposal for IGF improvements that you and some others have championed here has been directly linked to the establishment of a UN body for enhanced cooperation by the Indian government. To me this is a pity, because the former does have some good ideas that if decoupled from an intergovernmental end game on EC would have made the IGF more useful and closer to what some of us hoped for back in 2004. But the linkage has been spelled out, and I strongly suspect the Indian IGF improvement proposals are now dead on arrival. Why would all the actors that oppose intergovernmental control support IGF proposals that are designed to enable IGF to feed into an intergovernmental control mechanism? India has given away the game that these actors always insisted was really being played behind the scenes. We are probably now in for an unproductive WGIGF process. I suspect that for the next half year we'll be getting frustrated emails from you and our other reps about how the TC, business, and non-G77/China governments are blocking this or that proposal for more structured dialogues, working groups, outputs, etc. It is unclear that CS will be able to articulate some sort of third way that would make the IGF more than an annual chat fest without this being viewed as part of a larger and more important battle, especially when some of our representatives are closely identified with the intergovernmental agenda. At the moment i'm not too hopeful, but would be interested to hear discussion of ways in which this could be done. Cheers, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sun Oct 30 06:21:58 2011 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 11:21:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This event sounds very much like a trade show on security, with a major sponsor Endace, a New Zealand company looking for worldwide expansion. Somehow, advertising the event smacks of show business, one day boondoggling in London for £995 + VAT registration. Are the good times coming back ? - - - On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. > > http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ > > As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil society > representation, though a fair amount of business - the business especially > who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of so called > security. > > Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? > > avri > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Oct 30 06:23:11 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:23:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] Indian proposal => "IGF improvements" In-Reply-To: <549EFAF4-B302-4E15-B666-7C167CE71AB8@uzh.ch> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> <549EFAF4-B302-4E15-B666-7C167CE71AB8@uzh.ch> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Marilia > Since you and our other reps will soon be in Geneva for the WGIGF meeting, > it seems timely to circle back to this thread. > therefore > asked why the Tshwane Declaration didn't just come out and take the UN > oversight body concept off the table if that was true.  Now we have the > answer—it wasn't. > Irrespective of any stakeholder views, the Indian government has ploughed > ahead and formally proposed almost precisely what the "just a draft" said > (actually it's worse—the Indian language adds to the list of functions, > "Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on > Internet-related public policies"…this to be done by 50 governments that > meets for two weeks a year for ten six hour days). "and convene additional meetings, as and when required.", which makes me think there will, eventually, (and probably sooner rather than later ) be more or less full-time meetings going on (which is why I said mission creep yesterday).  And they did this in a > purely intergovernmental setting where stakeholder views are duly ignored. >  One might add that I asked the indian representative twice on stage > whether/when a proposal might go to the GA and got evasive answers.  Since > this was done a couple weeks after Nairobi, one has to assume that they'd > already decided and just weren't going to say it in a multistakeholder > setting where people might raise questions, which strikes me as rather > indicative of how we can expect all this to be handled going forward. +1 -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Oct 30 06:44:55 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 11:44:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF improvements: Forwards or Backwards? References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> <549EFAF4-B302-4E15-B666-7C167CE71AB8@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C696@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody I will give my specific and detailed analysis of the Indian proposal a little bit later but for now it seems to be that it is important to clarify what the final objective is when we enter into a new round of interlinked and interrelated global discussion and negotiations and meet next week for the IGF Improvement WG CSTD meeting in Geneva. Do we want to move towards an improved multistakeholder PROCESS or do we plan to build a new multigovernmental STRUCTURE. The debate about multilateralism vs. multistakeholderism in Nairobi was very enlightening. My argument was that the multilateral intergovernmental treaty system will be more and more embedded into a multistakeholder environment where the interactive dialog among the stakeholders leads to a common understanding which can produce a (multistakeholder) "Framework of Commitments" instead of a (intergovermental) "Framework Convention". The question for the future of the IGF is whether it will provide a space also for governments to give their input into a multistakeholder process or whether the IGF itself should become a place which produces input into an intergovernmental process. If the role of the IGF would be reduced to give input into an intergovernmental body we would be back in 2002 when the WSIS started with exactly the same structure. We had an "Intergovernmental WSIS Bureau" and two "Non-governmental Stakeholder WSIS Bureaus" which were invited to give "input" into the intergovernmental negotiations. The result is known. When the "Civil Society WSIS Bureau" gave 96 recommendations to the 1st draft tabled by the "Intergovernmental WSIS Bureau" in September 2003, only three Civil Society proposals were reflected in the 2nd draft of the intergovernmental declaration in October 2003. When CS protested and labeled the governmental behaviour as "ignorant" and "arrogant", WSIS president Sammassekou, who told civil society in early September 2003 that we should move from "input" to "impcat" and from "turmoil" to "trust" in the relationship between governments and civil society, maneuvered and explained to the WSIS Civil Society Bureau that this is the nature of the intergovernmental process. Nobody would get everything. However, the feeling of "ignorance" of civil society input into an intergovernmental process could not be wished away. This pushed civil society into a position to consider to leave the whole WSIS and to organize an alternative process. I remember the meeting with the Swiss President where he tried to convince civil society that it would make sense to "stay within the process" and not to march through the streets of Geneva. He signaled understanding for the frustration of the civil society and refered to the fact that such an innovation in global policy making as the multistakeholder approach would need some times for all stakeholders to get a better understanding what this means in reality. I remember also the press conference in Geneva in October 2003 with hundreds of journalists who wanted to see the walk our of civil society and the collapse of WSIS. The "alternative process" which was finally accepted by the 500+ civil society organisations after several night sessions was to stay and to organize the alternative "WITHIN" the WSIS process. The result was the "Civil Society WSIS Declaration" which was handed over to the President of the WSIS (intergovernmental) summit. The comments in December 2003 were that the intergovernmental document formulated what "could be done" while the CS Declaration said what "should be done". It is worth to re-read the civil society Geneva Declaration from December 2003. As an outcome of this "parallel process" the WGIG, which was established after the Geneva Summit as a truly multistakeholder body where governmental and non-governmental members had the same speaking and drafting rights. WGIG produced the "Internet Governance definition" where it linked the stakeholders into a common process with no stakeholder in the "leadership position" ("shared decison making procedures" and "respective roles".) This definition was adopted by the heads of states of 160+ governments, including the governments of Brazil, India, China and Russia. To go back to 2002 for an IGF, which is now confronted with the challenges of the year 2020, would be the wrong u-turn. I hope that the civil society members of the IGF working group will remember history, can make this clear to governments and other members of the group and come with better "improvement proposals" into the meeting next Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: So 30.10.2011 10:16 An: Marilia Maciel Cc: Governance List Betreff: [governance] Indian proposal => "IGF improvements" Hi Marilia Since you and our other reps will soon be in Geneva for the WGIGF meeting, it seems timely to circle back to this thread. On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: I would like to focus on what Bill has mentioned. I believe it is a very important topic, given the fact that we are close to the CSTD WG meeting and "outcomes" will be an important topic: This is a barrier I wish we could somehow overcome. As long as developing country intergovernmental efforts on EC and in the ITU appear to have intergovernmental control as their end game and the IGF is getting tactically linked to this as you noted, one imagines the TC, business, and a lot of governments will remain wedded to the fear that an IGF that does more than meet and chat once a year would necessarily get leveraged to advance that agenda. And CS proponents of more intensive, structured and "outcome" oriented dialogues will remain isolated and frustrated. If intergovernmental control could be taken off the table, at least outside the ITU, that might help to make "IGF improvements" a less divisive topic. I think we should separate the two topics, IGF improvements and enhanced cooperation. They are related, but they are different topics. And I personally think that a more outcome oriented IGF would be beneficial with our without the implementation of enhanced cooperation. I wish it were otherwise, but they have been very closely related since CS first started advocating an IGF in 2004 and will be more so going forward. We were told by several people here that nobody should be concerned about the Rio proposal because it was just a draft and of course the 3 governments would be fully taking on board the opposition voiced by virtually everyone who spoke to it in the Nairobi CIR session. I therefore asked why the Tshwane Declaration didn't just come out and take the UN oversight body concept off the table if that was true. Now we have the answer-it wasn't. Irrespective of any stakeholder views, the Indian government has ploughed ahead and formally proposed almost precisely what the "just a draft" said (actually it's worse-the Indian language adds to the list of functions, "Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies"...this to be done by 50 governments that meets for two weeks a year for ten six hour days). And they did this in a purely intergovernmental setting where stakeholder views are duly ignored. One might add that I asked the indian representative twice on stage whether/when a proposal might go to the GA and got evasive answers. Since this was done a couple weeks after Nairobi, one has to assume that they'd already decided and just weren't going to say it in a multistakeholder setting where people might raise questions, which strikes me as rather indicative of how we can expect all this to be handled going forward. So now we have been allowed to see the Indian proposal, and it says inter alia that "An improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP, will ensure a stronger and more effective complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF." So let's no longer pretend that the two issues can be viewed separately. The Indian proposal for IGF improvements that you and some others have championed here has been directly linked to the establishment of a UN body for enhanced cooperation by the Indian government. To me this is a pity, because the former does have some good ideas that if decoupled from an intergovernmental end game on EC would have made the IGF more useful and closer to what some of us hoped for back in 2004. But the linkage has been spelled out, and I strongly suspect the Indian IGF improvement proposals are now dead on arrival. Why would all the actors that oppose intergovernmental control support IGF proposals that are designed to enable IGF to feed into an intergovernmental control mechanism? India has given away the game that these actors always insisted was really being played behind the scenes. We are probably now in for an unproductive WGIGF process. I suspect that for the next half year we'll be getting frustrated emails from you and our other reps about how the TC, business, and non-G77/China governments are blocking this or that proposal for more structured dialogues, working groups, outputs, etc. It is unclear that CS will be able to articulate some sort of third way that would make the IGF more than an annual chat fest without this being viewed as part of a larger and more important battle, especially when some of our representatives are closely identified with the intergovernmental agenda. At the moment i'm not too hopeful, but would be interested to hear discussion of ways in which this could be done. Cheers, 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 email at hakik.org Sun Oct 30 07:06:36 2011 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 11:06:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF improvements: Forwards or Backwards? References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> <549EFAF4-B302-4E15-B666-7C167CE71AB8@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <20111030110710.603174BE17@npogroups.org> Prof. Kleinwächter: Very good pointers to move ahead towards 2020, realizing the outcome which started in 2002 and back the idea of ´WITHIN´ the WSIS process as an inclusive agenda. Hakik At 10:44 30-10-2011, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Hi everybody > >I will give my specific and detailed analysis of >the Indian proposal a little bit later but for >now it seems to be that it is important to >clarify what the final objective is when we >enter into a new round of interlinked and >interrelated global discussion and negotiations >and meet next week for the IGF Improvement WG CSTD meeting in Geneva. > >Do we want to move towards an improved >multistakeholder PROCESS or do we plan to build >a new multigovernmental STRUCTURE. > >The debate about multilateralism vs. >multistakeholderism in Nairobi was very >enlightening. My argument was that the >multilateral intergovernmental treaty system >will be more and more embedded into a >multistakeholder environment where the >interactive dialog among the stakeholders leads >to a common understanding which can produce a >(multistakeholder) "Framework of Commitments" >instead of a (intergovermental) "Framework Convention". > >The question for the future of the IGF is >whether it will provide a space also for >governments to give their input into a >multistakeholder process or whether the IGF >itself should become a place which produces >input into an intergovernmental process. > >If the role of the IGF would be reduced to give >input into an intergovernmental body we would be >back in 2002 when the WSIS started with exactly >the same structure. We had an "Intergovernmental >WSIS Bureau" and two "Non-governmental >Stakeholder WSIS Bureaus" which were invited to >give "input" into the intergovernmental negotiations. > >The result is known. When the "Civil Society >WSIS Bureau" gave 96 recommendations to the 1st >draft tabled by the "Intergovernmental WSIS >Bureau" in September 2003, only three Civil >Society proposals were reflected in the 2nd >draft of the intergovernmental declaration in >October 2003. When CS protested and labeled the >governmental behaviour as "ignorant" and >"arrogant", WSIS president Sammassekou, who told >civil society in early September 2003 that we >should move from "input" to "impcat" and from >"turmoil" to "trust" in the relationship between >governments and civil society, maneuvered and >explained to the WSIS Civil Society Bureau that >this is the nature of the intergovernmental >process. Nobody would get everything. > >However, the feeling of "ignorance" of civil >society input into an intergovernmental process >could not be wished away. This pushed civil >society into a position to consider to leave the >whole WSIS and to organize an alternative >process. I remember the meeting with the Swiss >President where he tried to convince civil >society that it would make sense to "stay within >the process" and not to march through the >streets of Geneva. He signaled understanding for >the frustration of the civil society and refered >to the fact that such an innovation in global >policy making as the multistakeholder approach >would need some times for all stakeholders to >get a better understanding what this means in >reality. I remember also the press conference in >Geneva in October 2003 with hundreds of >journalists who wanted to see the walk our of >civil society and the collapse of WSIS. > >The "alternative process" which was finally >accepted by the 500+ civil society organisations >after several night sessions was to stay and to >organize the alternative "WITHIN" the WSIS >process. The result was the "Civil Society WSIS >Declaration" which was handed over to the >President of the WSIS (intergovernmental) >summit. The comments in December 2003 were that >the intergovernmental document formulated what >"could be done" while the CS Declaration said >what "should be done". It is worth to re-read >the civil society Geneva Declaration from December 2003. > >As an outcome of this "parallel process" the >WGIG, which was established after the Geneva >Summit as a truly multistakeholder body where >governmental and non-governmental members had >the same speaking and drafting rights. WGIG >produced the "Internet Governance definition" >where it linked the stakeholders into a common >process with no stakeholder in the "leadership >position" ("shared decison making procedures" >and "respective roles".) This definition was >adopted by the heads of states of 160+ >governments, including the governments of Brazil, India, China and Russia. > >To go back to 2002 for an IGF, which is now >confronted with the challenges of the year 2020, >would be the wrong u-turn. I hope that the civil >society members of the IGF working group will >remember history, can make this clear to >governments and other members of the group and >come with better "improvement proposals" into >the meeting next Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday. > >Wolfgang > > >________________________________ > >Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von William Drake >Gesendet: So 30.10.2011 10:16 >An: Marilia Maciel >Cc: Governance List >Betreff: [governance] Indian proposal => "IGF improvements" > > >Hi Marilia > >Since you and our other reps will soon be in >Geneva for the WGIGF meeting, it seems timely to circle back to this thread. > > >On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > I would like to focus on what Bill has > mentioned. I believe it is a very important > topic, given the fact that we are close to the > CSTD WG meeting and "outcomes" will be an important topic: > > > > This is a barrier I wish we > could somehow overcome. As long as developing > country intergovernmental efforts on EC and in > the ITU appear to have intergovernmental > control as their end game and the IGF is > getting tactically linked to this as you noted, > one imagines the TC, business, and a lot of > governments will remain wedded to the fear that > an IGF that does more than meet and chat once a > year would necessarily get leveraged to advance > that agenda. And CS proponents of more > intensive, structured and "outcome" oriented > dialogues will remain isolated and > frustrated. If intergovernmental control could > be taken off the table, at least outside the > ITU, that might help to make "IGF improvements" a less divisive topic. > > > > I think we should separate the two > topics, IGF improvements and enhanced > cooperation. They are related, but they are > different topics. And I personally think that a > more outcome oriented IGF would be beneficial > with our without the implementation of enhanced cooperation. > > > >I wish it were otherwise, but they have been >very closely related since CS first started >advocating an IGF in 2004 and will be more so >going forward. We were told by several people >here that nobody should be concerned about the >Rio proposal because it was just a draft and of >course the 3 governments would be fully taking >on board the opposition voiced by virtually >everyone who spoke to it in the Nairobi CIR >session. I therefore asked why the Tshwane >Declaration didn't just come out and take the UN >oversight body concept off the table if that was >true. Now we have the answer-it wasn't. > >Irrespective of any stakeholder views, the >Indian government has ploughed ahead and >formally proposed almost precisely what the >"just a draft" said (actually it's worse-the >Indian language adds to the list of functions, >"Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions >and agreements on Internet-related public >policies"...this to be done by 50 governments >that meets for two weeks a year for ten six hour >days). And they did this in a purely >intergovernmental setting where stakeholder >views are duly ignored. One might add that I >asked the indian representative twice on stage >whether/when a proposal might go to the GA and >got evasive answers. Since this was done a >couple weeks after Nairobi, one has to assume >that they'd already decided and just weren't >going to say it in a multistakeholder setting >where people might raise questions, which >strikes me as rather indicative of how we can >expect all this to be handled going forward. > >So now we have been allowed to see the Indian >proposal, and it says inter alia that "An >improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as >a purposeful body for policy consultations and >provide meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP, >will ensure a stronger and more effective >complementarity between the CIRP and the >IGF." So let's no longer pretend that the two >issues can be viewed separately. The Indian >proposal for IGF improvements that you and some >others have championed here has been directly >linked to the establishment of a UN body for >enhanced cooperation by the Indian >government. To me this is a pity, because the >former does have some good ideas that if >decoupled from an intergovernmental end game on >EC would have made the IGF more useful and >closer to what some of us hoped for back in >2004. But the linkage has been spelled out, and >I strongly suspect the Indian IGF improvement >proposals are now dead on arrival. Why would >all the actors that oppose intergovernmental >control support IGF proposals that are designed >to enable IGF to feed into an intergovernmental >control mechanism? India has given away the >game that these actors always insisted was >really being played behind the scenes. > >We are probably now in for an unproductive WGIGF >process. I suspect that for the next half year >we'll be getting frustrated emails from you and >our other reps about how the TC, business, and >non-G77/China governments are blocking this or >that proposal for more structured dialogues, >working groups, outputs, etc. It is unclear >that CS will be able to articulate some sort of >third way that would make the IGF more than an >annual chat fest without this being viewed as >part of a larger and more important battle, >especially when some of our representatives are >closely identified with the intergovernmental >agenda. At the moment i'm not too hopeful, but >would be interested to hear discussion of ways in which this could be done. > >Cheers, > >Bill > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Oct 30 07:37:13 2011 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:37:13 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <32506104.42114.1319974633649.JavaMail.www@wwinf2216> Wow ! Louis, no doubt : there are probably different classes in IG/CS. Best Jean-Louis > Message du 30/10/11 11:23 > De : "Louis Pouzin (well)" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Avri Doria" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Cyber Security 2011 > > This event sounds very much like a trade show on security, with a major sponsor Endace, a New Zealand company looking for worldwide expansion. Somehow, advertising the event smacks of show business, one day boondoggling in London for £995 + VAT registration. Are the good times coming back ? > - - - > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. > > http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ > > As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil society representation, though a fair amount of business - the business especially who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of so called security. > > Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? > > avri > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Oct 30 07:50:34 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:50:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA6F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20111028054943.GA25885@vortex.com>,<398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4EAAB6F3.3010002@cis-india.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA6F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4EAD3A0A.9080909@cafonso.ca> Wow, this GAC really irritated Milton. It does irritate me as well, and I think I have even more reasons than his... :) []s fraternos --c.a. On 10/29/2011 05:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I want to amend my comments with one very important concession to the IBSA/CIRP advocates: > If CIRP can make the ICANN GAC go away and die...er, become incorporated into it, it may find stronger support vibes emanating from Syracuse. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On >> Behalf Of Milton L Mueller >> Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:20 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Pranesh Prakash; Lee W McKnight >> Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of >> Internet >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On >>> Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash >>> >>> I love how WSIS and IGF "took over" the Internet, and I look forward >>> to further "takeovers" of the Internet in the days to come. I wonder >>> if folks will now start #OccupyTheInternet >>> >> >> Cute. >> >> Some history for Pranesh, since he is evidently unfamiliar with it. >> >> WSIS did indeed try to "take over" ICANN, it just failed because of the >> people and arguments you now reject. Although it was always an >> exaggeration to claim that the UN was trying to take over the Internet >> as a whole, these fears were exaggerated NOT because many governments >> did not, in fact, want to do that but simply because they lacked the >> capability to do so. And they lacked that capability because most of >> Internet and telecoms is in the hands of private companies responding to >> market forces - something that the same people also tend to reject. >> >> China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and probably other states are on record as >> favoring the elimination of ICANN and RIRs and their replacement by >> intergovernmental governance mechanisms. >> >> India has publicly embraced replacement of the RIR model with a national >> internet registry model. >> >> All of IBSA asserted during, and after, WSIS that they prefer a national >> sovereignty based model for internet governance. All of IBSA, and even >> the EC and other developed states, believe in the fallacy that states >> can make "public policy" for the Internet outside of an agreed >> constitutional and legal framework that carefully defines and delimits >> their powers and protects both the substantive and due process rights of >> individuals. >> >> And now you suggest that a proposal by a rising state to throw this all >> into the hands of the UN is some harmless thing. >> >> Wake up. >> >> People in civil society, such as Jeremy, who rightly see some of the >> hypocrisy underlying defenses of the status quo but who fail to see the >> far more serious threat of destroying the more open, organically >> Developed Internet Institutions (ODII) by sovereignty-based >> intergovernmental hierarchies are deeply out of touch with political >> reality on a global basis, or are letting their anger get the better of >> them and losing perspective completely. >> >> We do not have to choose between the status quo and the UN (an earlier, >> kruftier status quo). Everyone needs to write that on the chalkboard 50 >> times. >> >> One thing I have noticed is that the people who feel this way are >> generally not people with first-hand experience of ICANN, and thus do >> not see how governments in the GAC behave. GAC's behavior is relevant >> because it shows you how govts actually intervene in a MS or more >> decentralized environment. How do they behave? >> >> Here is one good example >> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/29/4909356.html >> Here is another >> http://www.komaitis.org/1/post/2011/10/icann-41-the-fight-over- >> multistakeholderism.html#comments >> >> Govts amplify and reinforce the policy demands of vested interests and >> of state security/law enforcement. Sure, there will always be >> inequalities of power in any political economy, but intergovernmentalism >> is nothing more than a carving up of the space among the winners at the >> national level. Social democrats who see them as the "voice of the >> people" need to get a better grip on the empirical realities of how >> states actually behave. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Oct 30 07:57:45 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:57:45 -0200 Subject: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EAD3BB9.2060901@cafonso.ca> I recall participating in an ITU event in Geneva on cybersecurity which was also a trade show, promoting certain companies, ignoring the CERT/CSIRT networks etc. These seem to be basically meetings sponsored by governments on the business of cibersecurity -- which do not make them less harmful regarding the risks of rights violations. --c.a. On 10/30/2011 08:21 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > This event sounds very much like a trade show on security, with a major > sponsor Endace, a New Zealand company looking for worldwide expansion. > Somehow, advertising the event smacks of show business, one day > boondoggling in London for £995 + VAT registration. Are the good times > coming back ? > - - - > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. >> >> http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ >> >> As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil society >> representation, though a fair amount of business - the business especially >> who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of so called >> security. >> >> Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? >> >> avri >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 at nwagner.org Sun Oct 30 09:01:52 2011 From: b at nwagner.org (Ben Wagner) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 14:01:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To clarify the difference, there is a difference between the two events. The first link by Avri isn't the offical conference, it's the inter-governmental event on Nov. 1-2 CS should be concerned about. To provide a little more context to the event: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/26/cyber_hague_event/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/20/bring_economics_into_freedom_debate/ From everything I have heard so far this will be a very high level event attempting to focus the debate on cyber security at the expense of most other internet governance issues. Ben On 30 October 2011 11:21, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > This event sounds very much like a trade show on security, with a major > sponsor Endace, a New Zealand company looking for worldwide expansion. > Somehow, advertising the event smacks of show business, one day > boondoggling in London for £995 + VAT registration. Are the good times > coming back ? > - - - > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. >> >> http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ >> >> As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil society >> representation, though a fair amount of business - the business especially >> who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of so called >> security. >> >> Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? >> >> avri >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Sun Oct 30 09:14:44 2011 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:14:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, Ben is right on the need to set the two apart. It would be useful for those commenting to state which event they are referring to. The link sent by Wolfgang is for an event co-sponsored by Chatham House, which has done great work in human rights, exposing corruption, etc etc. I would find it odd to see them involved in an event in collusion with governments/ business to shut out CS. Rui On 30 October 2011 15:01, Ben Wagner wrote: > To clarify the difference, there is a difference between the two events. > The first link by Avri isn't the offical conference, it's the > inter-governmental event on Nov. 1-2 CS should be concerned about. > > To provide a little more context to the event: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/26/cyber_hague_event/ > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/20/bring_economics_into_freedom_debate/ > > From everything I have heard so far this will be a very high level event > attempting to focus the debate on cyber security at the expense of most > other internet governance issues. > > Ben > > > > On 30 October 2011 11:21, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > >> This event sounds very much like a trade show on security, with a major >> sponsor Endace, a New Zealand company looking for worldwide expansion. >> Somehow, advertising the event smacks of show business, one day >> boondoggling in London for £995 + VAT registration. Are the good times >> coming back ? >> - - - >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. >>> >>> http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ >>> >>> As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil >>> society representation, though a fair amount of business - the business >>> especially who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of >>> so called security. >>> >>> Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- _________________________ Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant _______________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Sun Oct 30 11:01:53 2011 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:31:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20111028054943.GA25885@vortex.com>,<398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4EAAB6F3.3010002@cis-india.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4EAD66E1.6060200@cis-india.org> Milton L Mueller wrote [2011-10-30 00:50]: > Some history for Pranesh, since he is evidently unfamiliar with it. Thanks for the history lesson, Milton. Much appreciated. > WSIS did indeed try to "take over" ICANN, it just failed because of the people and arguments you now reject. Although it was always an exaggeration to claim that the UN was trying to take over the Internet as a whole, these fears were exaggerated NOT because many governments did not, in fact, want to do that but simply because they lacked the capability to do so. And they lacked that capability because most of Internet and telecoms is in the hands of private companies responding to market forces - something that the same people also tend to reject. When I read that paragraph, I see sentiments that I agree with and arguments that I don't ('they lacked the capability to do so'—I see political pressure as having played a greater role). I think there are 'market forces' other than those of economics, which also helped out: differences in legal regimes would mean that coming to bare global minimums would be impossible. (So while talking about human rights being the foundation of internet governance is a jolly good thing to do, we all know it is not as easy to implement as a global policy. In one country it might be illegal to ban ultra-right wing speech calling for violence, and in another country it might be illegal not to ban it.) But then, we also see that there is the UN Charter and the UDHR, which contains lofty ideals, and which all UN countries have agreed to, yet how those ideas pan out when it comes to self-sovereignty of peoples, international slavery, labour laws, and freedom of speech shows that while countries actions might be shaped by them, they are not governed by them. There are governed by realpolitik, which has to incorporate the various other things that go to shape governmental actions including pressure from human rights organizations, from corporations, and other governments and inter-governmental organizations. A question: if WSIS lacked 'the capability' to 'take over' ICANN, what has since changed that the CIRP could do so? As you've said in your blog post on the CIRP, "CIRP looks more like a government-centered IGF - one that is empowered to make recommendations - than a global Internet Czar." > And now you suggest that a proposal by a rising state to throw this all into the hands of the UN is some harmless thing. I do not, for two reasons. First, I believe that is a characterisation without sufficient nuance—and thus falls in the same category as the original statement on 'UN take over', which you yourself agreed is lacking in nuance. Second, I think that such proposals are a necessary part of shifting from the status quo. I further believe that private entities are not in a position to lead a shift from the status quo (since it is governments that have kept the status quo in place). Private entities must necessarily get their governments (whether it is the US government, or others) to shift away from the status quo. > People in civil society, such as Jeremy, who rightly see some of the hypocrisy underlying defenses of the status quo but who fail to see the far more serious threat of destroying the more open, organically Developed Internet Institutions (ODII) by sovereignty-based intergovernmental hierarchies are deeply out of touch with political reality on a global basis, or are letting their anger get the better of them and losing perspective completely. This is the actual crux of our disagreement. I believe that thinking that governments do not or should not play a central role in Internet governance is, while desirable, not possible given current political realities of the way international politics is wedded to and embedded in nation states. Can such things change? Undoubtedly so. (To take an example outside of the realm of IG, there is a shift in customary international law in the treatment of Non State Actors vis-a-vis Article 51 of the UN Charter in the past thirty years.) Are things changing within IG? I'm afraid not in the right direction, and not quickly enough. In a few days the US is about to put out a new contract for the IANA, on which excellent discussions have been taking place on this list, on the IGP blog, and elsewhere. While things like the AOC might exist, while the IAB exists, etc., what exactly has changed from the Department of Commerce take over (without quotes) of the domain name system in 1998? What has happened to AlterNIC, what's happened OSRN, and to dynamism in the market leading to decrease in government control? The truth is: the Internet, in many ways, has become more ossified as the private entities responsible for the networks and the services and content delivered over it have grown larger, and with the increasing tendencies of governments to regulate the Internet more finely. The truth is that most private entities are wary of getting on the wrong side of government (or are eager for more government contracts) and cooperate in all kinds of censorship and surveillance, even if they are prohibited from doing so by the law. And often, such cooperation is required by the law. Lawmakers in the United States are seeking to establish control of the DNS system, treating it as property of unrepresented vigilantes. US courts have agreed with them. This will affect not just those in the United States (as with Iranian government's censorship regime which affects only Iranians), but .com, .org and .net users everywhere. I am not telling you anything you don't know and haven't already spoken out against. We both agree that governments tend to wish for greater control, and this must be resisted (in favour of open, functional, multi-stakeholderism). Ours is a disagreement on the how. I believe that governments must get involved and lead this change because none of the other stakeholders are capable, even if willing, of doing so, and you believe that will be positively harmful as governments will not willingly lead a change towards less governmental control and the shift to the UN from US-centrism as being a case of two wrongs not making a right. > We do not have to choose between the status quo and the UN (an earlier, kruftier status quo). Everyone needs to write that on the chalkboard 50 times. A small quibble: I think it is not useful to simply say "UN" without examining what that means. For instance, is IGF, as it stands now, "UN"? Would a renewed, reformed IGF mandate be "UN"? Is "enhanced cooperation" between nation-states by itself "UN", given the current lack of alternatives? And I think exploring alternatives aloud and in the public, even if idealistic and (currently) politically infeasible, is a necessary part of getting change and making them feasible. Which is why your book, and some of the current discussions on this list on 'alternatives to the status quo', are extremely useful and important. Having said that, I don't see any other serious proposals to create an effective (non-superficial) change in the status quo. Lastly, I believe you ["fair assessment"][1] is a much clearer exposition of the problems with the CIRP proposal than this e-mail. Regards, Pranesh [1]: -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 262 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From avri at acm.org Sun Oct 30 12:46:20 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:46:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3172D7E4-06AF-4395-A065-C23595C5009C@acm.org> I apologize for sending out the wrong link at first. I had heard about the Chatham House event sitting in a conference meeting, was horrified and without having the correct information wanted to make a wider group of people aware - since the time is so short. And what I did was confused things. but at least the issue is now on the table. And fortunately there were people to correct it. Thanks to Wolfgang and Ben for correcting my erroneous sky is falling message. I still think it may be falling, but not from the direction I was pointing. So, is there any official information on this event other than the Register articles? Is anyone on this list participating who can give more information? It does appear that they are doing a pretty good job of keeping this thing secret. Why is that? avri Ps. One useful piece of info in the Register article: > The event will be held on 1 and 2 November, watch out for The Register's foray into live-tweeting from the conference floor by following c. ® We should be ready to comment on the info that comes out of this event. Quickly and loudly. On 30 Oct 2011, at 09:14, Rui Correia wrote: > Yes, Ben is right on the need to set the two apart. It would be useful for those commenting to state which event they are referring to. > > The link sent by Wolfgang is for an event co-sponsored by Chatham House, which has done great work in human rights, exposing corruption, etc etc. I would find it odd to see them involved in an event in collusion with governments/ business to shut out CS. > > Rui > > > On 30 October 2011 15:01, Ben Wagner wrote: > To clarify the difference, there is a difference between the two events. The first link by Avri isn't the offical conference, it's the inter-governmental event on Nov. 1-2 CS should be concerned about. > > To provide a little more context to the event: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/26/cyber_hague_event/ > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/20/bring_economics_into_freedom_debate/ > > From everything I have heard so far this will be a very high level event attempting to focus the debate on cyber security at the expense of most other internet governance issues. > > Ben > > > > On 30 October 2011 11:21, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > This event sounds very much like a trade show on security, with a major sponsor Endace, a New Zealand company looking for worldwide expansion. Somehow, advertising the event smacks of show business, one day boondoggling in London for £995 + VAT registration. Are the good times coming back ? > - - - > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. > > http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ > > As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil society representation, though a fair amount of business - the business especially who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of so called security. > > Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? > > avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > _________________________ > Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 > Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 > > I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers > Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > > _______________ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sun Oct 30 12:48:05 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:48:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <4EACF94A.4050307@ciroap.org> References: <20111028054943.GA25885@vortex.com>,<398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4EAAB6F3.3010002@cis-india.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4EACF94A.4050307@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4EAD7FC5.8010304@apc.org> As we have seen from the OECD which has a similar mechanism for non-governmental stakeholder participation, ultimately the power remains with powerful. These are sometimes governments, sometimes commercial interest groups. Often government positions are assumed, particularly in the case of the US, based on lobbying from such interest groups in DC. Just giving other stakeholder groups the opportunity to give inputs is not enough and will not ensure effective multi-stakeholder participation. Good that there is a proposal to have a working group to discuss this.. but the overall structure and decision-flow proposed ends up with the GA and it is therefore by definition not multi-stakeholder. This might be OK for some of the decisions clustered in the rough scope of work for this committee.. but not for most of the work it appears to want to take on. I agree with Jeremy that the status quo is not working, but I don't see this committee being as open to civil society influence as you seem to think it might be. Similar modalities in the OECD is not achieving that degree of influence for civil society, and I don't see that this will either. Perhaps, with a much, much narrower and more focused scope of work such a committee could constitute an improvement on current 'intergovernmental' processes in the UN and the GAC. Anriette On 30/10/11 09:14, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 10/30/2011 03:20 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> People in civil society, such as Jeremy, who rightly see some of the >> hypocrisy underlying defenses of the status quo but who fail to see >> the far more serious threat of destroying the more open, organically >> Developed Internet Institutions (ODII) by sovereignty-based >> intergovernmental hierarchies are deeply out of touch with political >> reality on a global basis, or are letting their anger get the better >> of them and losing perspective completely. We do not have to choose >> between the status quo and the UN (an earlier, kruftier status quo). >> Everyone needs to write that on the chalkboard 50 times. > > In fact my attitude to this proposal is informed very strongly by > political reality. You might recall that the IGC's original response to > WGIG's IGF proposal was that the the IGF should be situated outside of > the United Nations, too. If it had been, would it even still exist > now? Yet the IGF is not the earlier, kruftier version of the UN that > the IGC perhaps feared when advocating that it be situated outside the UN. > > For the last few years I have taken heat for my idea that the IGF, if it > is to be able to make recommendations as its mandate requires, should > before allow governments (and the other stakeholder groups too) a power > of veto over those recommendations before they are issued. That > position, and my response to the CIRP proposal,* are influenced strongly > by the same political realities. > > I am not one of those social democrats of whom you speak, who believe > that intergovernmental organisations represent the will of the people > (in fact, I don't even know any such social democrats). But I do accept > that "enhanced cooperation" was never going to be just the IGF on > steroids: it was always going to be government-led. As such, situating > it in the UN is not preferable, merely inevitable. > > The UN is, doubtless, as corrupt as the United States Congress or the > Chinese Community Party. But to its credit, it does play such > plutocracies and dictatorships against each other, resulting in the > curbing of their worst excesses. Consider for example, how much worse > the WIPO Copyright Treaties or ACTA would have been, if the United > States, EU and Japan had been able to draft these on their own. > > So even if the CIRP was purely intergovernmental, we might still expect > that its policies may be "somewhat less bad than the status quo". But > because of its multi-stakeholder character, we can hope for much more: > that civil society will finally have a and positive real impact on > policies such as those that are being developed right now, outside of > any transnational multi-stakeholder framework, that are destroying the > Internet as we know it. > > * http://jere.my/l/1t > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent > and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member > organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international > movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @Consumers_Int > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Sun Oct 30 13:04:19 2011 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 11:04:19 -0600 Subject: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: <3172D7E4-06AF-4395-A065-C23595C5009C@acm.org> References: <3172D7E4-06AF-4395-A065-C23595C5009C@acm.org> Message-ID: <4EAD8393.2070109@eff.org> The G-8 statement mentioned the London event this is why it was on my radar On 10/30/11 10:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > I apologize for sending out the wrong link at first. > > I had heard about the Chatham House event sitting in a conference meeting, was horrified and without having the correct information wanted to make a wider group of people aware - since the time is so short. And what I did was confused things. > > but at least the issue is now on the table. And fortunately there were people to correct it. > > Thanks to Wolfgang and Ben for correcting my erroneous sky is falling message. I still think it may be falling, but not from the direction I was pointing. > > So, is there any official information on this event other than the Register articles? Is anyone on this list participating who can give more information? > It does appear that they are doing a pretty good job of keeping this thing secret. Why is that? > > avri > > Ps. > > One useful piece of info in the Register article: > >> The event will be held on 1 and 2 November, watch out for The Register's foray into live-tweeting from the conference floor by following c. ® > We should be ready to comment on the info that comes out of this event. Quickly and loudly. > > On 30 Oct 2011, at 09:14, Rui Correia wrote: > >> Yes, Ben is right on the need to set the two apart. It would be useful for those commenting to state which event they are referring to. >> >> The link sent by Wolfgang is for an event co-sponsored by Chatham House, which has done great work in human rights, exposing corruption, etc etc. I would find it odd to see them involved in an event in collusion with governments/ business to shut out CS. >> >> Rui >> >> >> On 30 October 2011 15:01, Ben Wagner wrote: >> To clarify the difference, there is a difference between the two events. The first link by Avri isn't the offical conference, it's the inter-governmental event on Nov. 1-2 CS should be concerned about. >> >> To provide a little more context to the event: >> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/26/cyber_hague_event/ >> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/20/bring_economics_into_freedom_debate/ >> >> From everything I have heard so far this will be a very high level event attempting to focus the debate on cyber security at the expense of most other internet governance issues. >> >> Ben >> >> >> >> On 30 October 2011 11:21, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> This event sounds very much like a trade show on security, with a major sponsor Endace, a New Zealand company looking for worldwide expansion. Somehow, advertising the event smacks of show business, one day boondoggling in London for £995 + VAT registration. Are the good times coming back ? >> - - - >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. >> >> http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ >> >> As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil society representation, though a fair amount of business - the business especially who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of so called security. >> >> Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? >> >> avri >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> _________________________ >> Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 >> Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 >> >> I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers >> Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos >> >> Rui Correia >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >> Angola Liaison Consultant >> >> _______________ >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Oct 30 13:25:26 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:25:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: <3172D7E4-06AF-4395-A065-C23595C5009C@acm.org> References: <3172D7E4-06AF-4395-A065-C23595C5009C@acm.org> Message-ID: In message <3172D7E4-06AF-4395-A065-C23595C5009C at acm.org>, at 12:46:20 on Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Avri Doria writes >So, is there any official information on this event other than the >Register articles? Is anyone on this list participating who can give >more information? >It does appear that they are doing a pretty good job of keeping this >thing secret. Why is that? That does seem to be a puzzle. I only heard about it by accident, about a month ago. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Oct 30 13:46:16 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:46:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <3172D7E4-06AF-4395-A065-C23595C5009C@acm.org> Message-ID: In message , at 17:25:26 on Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Roland Perry writes >>It does appear that they are doing a pretty good job of keeping this >>thing secret. Why is that? > >That does seem to be a puzzle. I only heard about it by accident, about >a month ago. I should have made it clearer that I'm not attending. Meanwhile Reuters says: As well as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, officials say there will be senior representatives from China, Russia, India and other governments as well as Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, executives from Google (GOOG.O), Facebook and other firms alongside bloggers and civil society groups. -- 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 b at nwagner.org Sun Oct 30 14:28:12 2011 From: b at nwagner.org (Ben Wagner) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:28:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] CoE Conference et al - "Our Internet - Our Rights, Our Freedoms" Message-ID: <4148DCC3-048F-49C0-8CE3-0B59EC691D69@nwagner.org> Hope everyone on the list is aware of the upcoming CoE conference with a strong HR frame: http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/conf2011/ It looks like there will be severak other interesting HR/FoE/CS-relevant internet governance events in November/December 2011. If anyone has confirmed/publishable information on these it would be great to pass it on to the whole list. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Oct 30 14:46:50 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 14:46:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: <4EAD8393.2070109@eff.org> References: <3172D7E4-06AF-4395-A065-C23595C5009C@acm.org> <4EAD8393.2070109@eff.org> Message-ID: <09E25153-A7CA-4BE4-9EAF-DBF241D5B688@acm.org> Hi, anyone from EFF attending? avri On 30 Oct 2011, at 13:04, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > The G-8 statement mentioned the London event this is why it was on my radar > > > On 10/30/11 10:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> I apologize for sending out the wrong link at first. >> >> I had heard about the Chatham House event sitting in a conference meeting, was horrified and without having the correct information wanted to make a wider group of people aware - since the time is so short. And what I did was confused things. >> >> but at least the issue is now on the table. And fortunately there were people to correct it. >> >> Thanks to Wolfgang and Ben for correcting my erroneous sky is falling message. I still think it may be falling, but not from the direction I was pointing. >> >> So, is there any official information on this event other than the Register articles? Is anyone on this list participating who can give more information? >> It does appear that they are doing a pretty good job of keeping this thing secret. Why is that? >> >> avri >> >> Ps. >> >> One useful piece of info in the Register article: >> >>> The event will be held on 1 and 2 November, watch out for The Register's foray into live-tweeting from the conference floor by following c. ® >> We should be ready to comment on the info that comes out of this event. Quickly and loudly. >> >> On 30 Oct 2011, at 09:14, Rui Correia wrote: >> >>> Yes, Ben is right on the need to set the two apart. It would be useful for those commenting to state which event they are referring to. >>> >>> The link sent by Wolfgang is for an event co-sponsored by Chatham House, which has done great work in human rights, exposing corruption, etc etc. I would find it odd to see them involved in an event in collusion with governments/ business to shut out CS. >>> >>> Rui >>> >>> >>> On 30 October 2011 15:01, Ben Wagner wrote: >>> To clarify the difference, there is a difference between the two events. The first link by Avri isn't the offical conference, it's the inter-governmental event on Nov. 1-2 CS should be concerned about. >>> >>> To provide a little more context to the event: >>> >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/26/cyber_hague_event/ >>> >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/20/bring_economics_into_freedom_debate/ >>> >>> From everything I have heard so far this will be a very high level event attempting to focus the debate on cyber security at the expense of most other internet governance issues. >>> >>> Ben >>> >>> >>> >>> On 30 October 2011 11:21, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>> This event sounds very much like a trade show on security, with a major sponsor Endace, a New Zealand company looking for worldwide expansion. Somehow, advertising the event smacks of show business, one day boondoggling in London for £995 + VAT registration. Are the good times coming back ? >>> - - - >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. >>> >>> http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ >>> >>> As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil society representation, though a fair amount of business - the business especially who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of so called security. >>> >>> Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> _________________________ >>> Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 >>> Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 >>> >>> I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers >>> Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos >>> >>> Rui Correia >>> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >>> Angola Liaison Consultant >>> >>> _______________ >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Oct 30 14:47:11 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:47:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <4EACF94A.4050307@ciroap.org> References: <20111028054943.GA25885@vortex.com>,<398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4EAAB6F3.3010002@cis-india.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4EACF94A.4050307@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CDD1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> In fact my attitude to this proposal is informed very strongly by political reality. You might recall that the IGC's original response to WGIG's IGF proposal was that the the IGF should be situated outside of the United Nations, too. If it had been, would it even still exist now? [Milton L Mueller] Is that supposed to be a rhetorical question, to which the answer is obvious? Problem is, I don't know what would have happened had it been outside the UN. The IGF is off the UN budget so I see no financial reason why it wouldn't exist, but perhaps you mean that BRIC and other governments would have abandoned it or refused to participate? Yet the IGF is not the earlier, kruftier version of the UN that the IGC perhaps feared when advocating that it be situated outside the UN. [Milton L Mueller] which is why IBSA are rejecting it (IGF), no? For the last few years I have taken heat for my idea that the IGF, if it is to be able to make recommendations as its mandate requires, should before allow governments (and the other stakeholder groups too) a power of veto over those recommendations before they are issued. That position, and my response to the CIRP proposal,* are influenced strongly by the same political realities. [Milton L Mueller] As you know, we agree on this. I think the real answer to your and Parminder's concerns is to strengthen the IGF. "enhanced cooperation" was never going to be just the IGF on steroids: it was always going to be government-led. As such, situating it in the UN is not preferable, merely inevitable. [Milton L Mueller] True, enhanced cooperation to many WSIS negotiators meant "more multilateralism" and "more government." But why do you let backwards-looking nation states define the parameters of what is possible? I reject this "inevitability" argument, and believe that there is no surer way to abandon every principle that makes this process worth participating in than to accept as inevitable something that just happens to be what some powerful people want. The UN is, doubtless, as corrupt as the United States Congress or the Chinese Community Party. But to its credit, it does play such plutocracies and dictatorships against each other, [Milton L Mueller] ...resulting in deadlock, as in the Syria case or the Palestine case. resulting in the curbing of their worst excesses. [Milton L Mueller] And when the states all agree, as in law enforcement surveillance and subordination of users to national security interests, what then? Consider for example, how much worse the WIPO Copyright Treaties or ACTA would have been, if the United States, EU and Japan had been able to draft these on their own. [Milton L Mueller] The difference is marginal, actually. But even if I accept your point for the sake of argument, the key difference is that on copyright issues some of the developing countries provide a pushback to the IPR-dominant countries; but on censorship, privacy and security issues they pull in the opposite direction - and could make things much worse. So even if the CIRP was purely intergovernmental [Milton L Mueller] It is purely intergovernmental. Like the OECD, it adds some vote-less advisory groups to an intergovernmental process. (oh, and also let me use this opportunity to address Parminder's silly comment. The reason you don't see any harangues about the OECD from me is because it already exists, so the best we can hope for is to broaden participation in it. If there were a debate about whether the 30 richest states should suddenly form a new IGO focused on Internet policy with a CSISAC, a BIAC and a ITAC tagging alongside, I would say the exact same things I am saying about CIRP. we might still expect that its policies may be "somewhat less bad than the status quo". But because of its multi-stakeholder character, we can hope for much more: that civil society will finally have a and positive real impact on policies such as those that are being developed right now, outside of any transnational multi-stakeholder framework, that are destroying the Internet as we know it. [Milton L Mueller] This statement re-convinces me that you don't have a good grasp of the political realities. Sorry. First, give me an example of what specific policies would be better if the UN were involved and the number of states were broadened. Just one would do. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Oct 30 14:59:47 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:59:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <3172D7E4-06AF-4395-A065-C23595C5009C@acm.org>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034A0C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Honestly, I'm unclear what people are alarmed about; looks like just another high-level talk -fest still, with some cs folks on program...and no significant action items or even time on the program to develop proposed action items. Even if it concludes with a press conference, so what. Odds of this having any significant impact on cybersecurity in any sense is just above zero. Imho. Giving politicians a chance to say they are aware of cyber issues isn't all bad is it. Maybe they will learn something from Jimmy Wales/Wikipedia, or Helen Margetts/Oxford Internet Institute; could happen. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 1:25 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 In message <3172D7E4-06AF-4395-A065-C23595C5009C at acm.org>, at 12:46:20 on Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Avri Doria writes >So, is there any official information on this event other than the >Register articles? Is anyone on this list participating who can give >more information? >It does appear that they are doing a pretty good job of keeping this >thing secret. Why is that? That does seem to be a puzzle. I only heard about it by accident, about a month ago. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Oct 30 15:06:31 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:06:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Indian proposal => "IGF improvements" In-Reply-To: <549EFAF4-B302-4E15-B666-7C167CE71AB8@uzh.ch> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> <549EFAF4-B302-4E15-B666-7C167CE71AB8@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CE04@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Bill makes some excellent points here. My comments: Irrespective of any stakeholder views, the Indian government has ploughed ahead and formally proposed almost precisely what the "just a draft" said (actually it's worse-the Indian language adds to the list of functions, "Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies"...this to be done by 50 governments that meets for two weeks a year for ten six hour days). [Milton L Mueller] Actually I was relieved to see the CIRP focused on that. I mean, what else could they legitimately do? If you're going to have national govts and an intergovernmental system trying to govern the Internet, it might indeed be better for them to address global IG in this universalistic, more balanced and more transparent way. In that respect I fully understand and mostly agree with the point Jeremy and Parminder are trying to make. But... What we have now are various clubs or groupings of governments. And that very point underscores the weakness of the CIRP proposal: USG, EC and other more developed states will continue to go their own way if it suits their interest. If CIRP is miraculously created, govts will behave strategically and bring to it the things they want other states to agree to, and try to obstruct it or ignore it if states they don't like try to use it to do things they don't want done. One might add that I asked the indian representative twice on stage whether/when a proposal might go to the GA and got evasive answers. Since this was done a couple weeks after Nairobi, one has to assume that they'd already decided and just weren't going to say it in a multistakeholder setting where people might raise questions, which strikes me as rather indicative of how we can expect all this to be handled going forward. [Milton L Mueller] Strongly agree. This is yet another example of states behaving strategically. If India and other states are not willing to use the IGF platform now, and will completely ignore the feedback they get from a MS forum, what makes anyone think that a CIRP will be different? So now we have been allowed to see the Indian proposal, and it says inter alia that "An improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP, will ensure a stronger and more effective complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF." So let's no longer pretend that the two issues can be viewed separately. The Indian proposal for IGF improvements that you and some others have championed here has been directly linked to the establishment of a UN body for enhanced cooperation by the Indian government. To me this is a pity, because the former does have some good ideas that if decoupled from an intergovernmental end game on EC would have made the IGF more useful and closer to what some of us hoped for back in 2004. But the linkage has been spelled out, and I strongly suspect the Indian IGF improvement proposals are now dead on arrival. Why would all the actors that oppose intergovernmental control support IGF proposals that are designed to enable IGF to feed into an intergovernmental control mechanism? India has given away the game that these actors always insisted was really being played behind the scenes. [Milton L Mueller] I would go further. As I said in my recent blog post, CIRP and IGF are, in the long term, mutually exclusive platforms. They cannot both attract a critical mass of states and other stakeholders. Either IGF is a redundant and subordinate "feeder" to the CIRP or it is its own game. If it is the former, its redundancy with the AGs and the CIRP process means that it dies a slower or faster death, depending on how vigorous the CIRP becomes. We are probably now in for an unproductive WGIGF process. I suspect that for the next half year we'll be getting frustrated emails from you and our other reps about how the TC, business, and non-G77/China governments are blocking this or that proposal for more structured dialogues, working groups, outputs, etc. It is unclear that CS will be able to articulate some sort of third way that would make the IGF more than an annual chat fest without this being viewed as part of a larger and more important battle, especially when some of our representatives are closely identified with the intergovernmental agenda. At the moment i'm not too hopeful, but would be interested to hear discussion of ways in which this could be done. [Milton L Mueller] Agree, and a very important point. Either IBSA governments move to strengthen the IGF, or they give up on it and propose a CIRP. It's clear which path they have chosen. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Oct 30 15:12:32 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:12:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: IGF improvements: Forwards or Backwards? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C696@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> <549EFAF4-B302-4E15-B666-7C167CE71AB8@uzh.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C696@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CE27@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > The question for the future of the IGF is whether it will provide a > space also for governments to give their input into a multistakeholder > process or whether the IGF itself should become a place which produces > input into an intergovernmental process. [Milton L Mueller] Exactly. And, I insist, if we take the latter road, the IGF cannot survive as a meaningful forum. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Oct 30 15:37:24 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:37:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <4EAD66E1.6060200@cis-india.org> References: <20111028054943.GA25885@vortex.com>,<398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4EAAB6F3.3010002@cis-india.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4EAD66E1.6060200@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CE55@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > while countries actions might be shaped by them, they are not governed > by them. There are governed by realpolitik, which has to incorporate the [Milton L Mueller] yes, good distinction. > A question: if WSIS lacked 'the capability' to 'take over' ICANN, what > has since changed that the CIRP could do so? As you've said in your > blog post on the CIRP, "CIRP looks more like a government-centered IGF - > one that is empowered to make recommendations - than a global Internet > Czar." [Milton L Mueller] Nothing much has changed. USG would not hand over the IANA contract, vast majority of Internet technical community and all of ODII still opposed to a takeover, ICANN is much stronger and more entrenched, in fact. EC still straddles the fence, pushing for more governmental control, but via GAC and not the UN. USG seems to view a stronger GAC as a way of pre-empting CIRP-like proposals, but obviously that hasn't worked ;-) What confuses me is why the CIRP is talking about using domain name and address registration fees to fund its activities. Do you have any idea? I honestly don't. Are they still looking for an ICANN takeover? [a lot of good stuff cut] > We both agree that governments tend to wish for greater control, and > this must be resisted (in favour of open, functional, multi- > stakeholderism). Ours is a disagreement on the how. I believe that > governments must get involved and lead this change because none of the > other stakeholders are capable, even if willing, of doing so, and you > believe that will be positively harmful as governments will not > willingly lead a change towards less governmental control and the shift > to the UN from US-centrism as being a case of two wrongs not making a > right. [Milton L Mueller] Yes, you characterize the difference accurately but you may not have noticed how the IGP group began almost precisely in the way you suggest, calling upon states to negotiate a framework convention as part of a MS process that would establish the foundations for a global regime that would preserve the openness and liberalism of the Internet. However, it became progressively clearer to me that states were motivated by the realpolitik dynamic you described above, and also by much narrower and more immediate lobbying from special interests, and thus simply could not be trusted to take that path. I believe that the best path now is to continue to hold off demands for coordinated state intervention as long as possible so as to allow decentralized, networked governance forms to become more rooted, especially in the developing world, and for a global polity to form around the internet. Stave off formalized efforts of established institutions as long as possible so that the practical absence of control via traditional means allows the other means to be explored. A key danger of this approach is the "unholy alliance" between the new, private-sector private governance forms and states, allowing a "worst of both worlds" situation. But I would rather deal with that problem than with a full-on reassertion of traditional state authority. > Lastly, I believe you ["fair assessment"][1] is a much clearer > exposition of the problems with the CIRP proposal than this e-mail. [Milton L Mueller] of course! On an email list I am much less careful...in case you hadn't noticed! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Sun Oct 30 16:39:25 2011 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 14:39:25 -0600 Subject: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: <09E25153-A7CA-4BE4-9EAF-DBF241D5B688@acm.org> References: <3172D7E4-06AF-4395-A065-C23595C5009C@acm.org> <4EAD8393.2070109@eff.org> <09E25153-A7CA-4BE4-9EAF-DBF241D5B688@acm.org> Message-ID: <4EADB5FD.1040006@eff.org> I don't think so. On 10/30/11 12:46 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > anyone from EFF attending? > > avri > > On 30 Oct 2011, at 13:04, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > >> The G-8 statement mentioned the London event this is why it was on my radar >> >> >> On 10/30/11 10:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> I apologize for sending out the wrong link at first. >>> >>> I had heard about the Chatham House event sitting in a conference meeting, was horrified and without having the correct information wanted to make a wider group of people aware - since the time is so short. And what I did was confused things. >>> >>> but at least the issue is now on the table. And fortunately there were people to correct it. >>> >>> Thanks to Wolfgang and Ben for correcting my erroneous sky is falling message. I still think it may be falling, but not from the direction I was pointing. >>> >>> So, is there any official information on this event other than the Register articles? Is anyone on this list participating who can give more information? >>> It does appear that they are doing a pretty good job of keeping this thing secret. Why is that? >>> >>> avri >>> >>> Ps. >>> >>> One useful piece of info in the Register article: >>> >>>> The event will be held on 1 and 2 November, watch out for The Register's foray into live-tweeting from the conference floor by following c. ® >>> We should be ready to comment on the info that comes out of this event. Quickly and loudly. >>> >>> On 30 Oct 2011, at 09:14, Rui Correia wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, Ben is right on the need to set the two apart. It would be useful for those commenting to state which event they are referring to. >>>> >>>> The link sent by Wolfgang is for an event co-sponsored by Chatham House, which has done great work in human rights, exposing corruption, etc etc. I would find it odd to see them involved in an event in collusion with governments/ business to shut out CS. >>>> >>>> Rui >>>> >>>> >>>> On 30 October 2011 15:01, Ben Wagner wrote: >>>> To clarify the difference, there is a difference between the two events. The first link by Avri isn't the offical conference, it's the inter-governmental event on Nov. 1-2 CS should be concerned about. >>>> >>>> To provide a little more context to the event: >>>> >>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/26/cyber_hague_event/ >>>> >>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/20/bring_economics_into_freedom_debate/ >>>> >>>> From everything I have heard so far this will be a very high level event attempting to focus the debate on cyber security at the expense of most other internet governance issues. >>>> >>>> Ben >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 30 October 2011 11:21, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>>> This event sounds very much like a trade show on security, with a major sponsor Endace, a New Zealand company looking for worldwide expansion. Somehow, advertising the event smacks of show business, one day boondoggling in London for £995 + VAT registration. Are the good times coming back ? >>>> - - - >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. >>>> >>>> http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ >>>> >>>> As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil society representation, though a fair amount of business - the business especially who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of so called security. >>>> >>>> Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> _________________________ >>>> Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 >>>> Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 >>>> >>>> I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers >>>> Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos >>>> >>>> Rui Correia >>>> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >>>> Angola Liaison Consultant >>>> >>>> _______________ >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> -- >> Katitza Rodriguez >> International Rights Director >> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> katitza at eff.org >> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) >> >> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Oct 30 17:28:55 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:28:55 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Indian proposal => "IGF improvements" In-Reply-To: <549EFAF4-B302-4E15-B666-7C167CE71AB8@uzh.ch> References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> <549EFAF4-B302-4E15-B666-7C167CE71AB8@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Dear Bill, This linkage you said that the indians have made between the two processes (EC and IGF improvements) is not at all new. The relation between the processes have been largely discussed in IGF workshops this year and has been mentioned in CSTD WG before. Evidently, an outcome oriented IGF would be a good way to feed discussions into any other organizations/bodies, including a mechanism of EC, if it comes into existance.If an EC mechanism is created, I would never want it to disregard IGF's inputs, would you? My point on my last message was that in any given scenario, and regardless of what happens to the EC proposal, having a more outcome oriented IGF is a good thing. If you disagree with that, could you comment on how outcomes could be negative on the 3 scenarios I mentioned? Another point: to affirm, as you did, that indian proposal tabled on the GA killed the possibility of a more outcome-oriented IGF in CSTD WG is not logical. EC does not derive from a more outcome oriented IGF. EC may happen without any improvements to the IGF (which would be the worst scenario ever, in my opinion). So both processes are connected, but, I repeat, they are different processes. If actors start to block discussions here in geneva because they did not like indian proposal in the GA, I am sorry, but they are the ones that will be hampering improvements, and they are the ones that will be killing the future of the IGF. I have just arrived and I am really tired, but hope this message is understandable ;) Hope to have (good) news tomorrow. Marilia On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:16 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Marilia > > Since you and our other reps will soon be in Geneva for the WGIGF meeting, > it seems timely to circle back to this thread. > > On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > I would like to focus on what Bill has mentioned. I believe it is a very > important topic, given the fact that we are close to the CSTD WG meeting > and "outcomes" will be an important topic: > > >> >> This is a barrier I wish we could somehow overcome. As long >> as developing country intergovernmental efforts on EC and in the ITU appear >> to have intergovernmental control as their end game and the IGF is getting >> tactically linked to this as you noted, one imagines the TC, business, and >> a lot of governments will remain wedded to the fear that an IGF that does >> more than meet and chat once a year would necessarily get leveraged to >> advance that agenda. And CS proponents of more intensive, structured and >> "outcome" oriented dialogues will remain isolated and frustrated. >> If intergovernmental control could be taken off the table, at least >> outside the ITU, that might help to make "IGF improvements" a less divisive >> topic. >> > > I think we should separate the two topics, IGF improvements and enhanced > cooperation. They are related, but they are different topics. And I > personally think that a more outcome oriented IGF would be beneficial with > our without the implementation of enhanced cooperation. > > > I wish it were otherwise, but they have been very closely related since CS > first started advocating an IGF in 2004 and will be more so going > forward. We were told by several people here that nobody should be > concerned about the Rio proposal because it was just a draft and of > course the 3 governments would be fully taking on board the opposition > voiced by virtually everyone who spoke to it in the Nairobi CIR session. > I therefore asked why the Tshwane Declaration didn't just come out and > take the UN oversight body concept off the table if that was true. Now we > have the answer—it wasn't. > > Irrespective of any stakeholder views, the Indian government has ploughed > ahead and formally proposed almost precisely what the "just a draft" said > (actually it's worse—the Indian language adds to the list of functions, > "Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on > Internet-related public policies"…this to be done by 50 governments that > meets for two weeks a year for ten six hour days). And they did this in a > purely intergovernmental setting where stakeholder views are duly ignored. > One might add that I asked the indian representative twice on stage > whether/when a proposal might go to the GA and got evasive answers. Since > this was done a couple weeks after Nairobi, one has to assume that they'd > already decided and just weren't going to say it in a multistakeholder > setting where people might raise questions, which strikes me as rather > indicative of how we can expect all this to be handled going forward. > > So now we have been allowed to see the Indian proposal, and it says inter > alia that "An improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as a purposeful > body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs to the > CIRP, will ensure a stronger and more effective complementarity between the > CIRP and the IGF." So let's no longer pretend that the two issues can be > viewed separately. The Indian proposal for IGF improvements that you and > some others have championed here has been directly linked to the > establishment of a UN body for enhanced cooperation by the Indian > government. To me this is a pity, because the former does have some good > ideas that if decoupled from an intergovernmental end game on EC would have > made the IGF more useful and closer to what some of us hoped for back in > 2004. But the linkage has been spelled out, and I strongly suspect the > Indian IGF improvement proposals are now dead on arrival. Why would all > the actors that oppose intergovernmental control support IGF proposals that > are designed to enable IGF to feed into an intergovernmental control > mechanism? India has given away the game that these actors always insisted > was really being played behind the scenes. > > We are probably now in for an unproductive WGIGF process. I suspect that > for the next half year we'll be getting frustrated emails from you and our > other reps about how the TC, business, and non-G77/China governments are > blocking this or that proposal for more structured dialogues, working > groups, outputs, etc. It is unclear that CS will be able to articulate > some sort of third way that would make the IGF more than an annual chat > fest without this being viewed as part of a larger and more important > battle, especially when some of our representatives are closely identified > with the intergovernmental agenda. At the moment i'm not too hopeful, but > would be interested to hear discussion of ways in which this could be done. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > > > > > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Oct 30 20:57:28 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 00:57:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Indian proposal => "IGF improvements" In-Reply-To: References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> <549EFAF4-B302-4E15-B666-7C167CE71AB8@uzh.ch>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034A8A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, If I may take a slightly different tack than my fellow OECD-friendly champagne-sipping colleagues (actually I skipped the champagne for red wine while hanging/kissing-a** @OECD/ICCP last week, but I digress ; ) 1) the OECD as intergovernmental talk shop has done some good things over the years eg bring information privacy and information security forward as issues governments - and rest of us - needed to take more seriously than was the case in the 70's; so....no need to apologize for its existence, it sometimes does usueful things. 2) ipso facto, if other aggregations of governments find it helpful to have secretariats do studies and organize meetings, eg ASEAN, APEC, Arab League, and gasp, possibly, India, Brazil, and South Africa, that in and of itself should not set off alarm bells. Especially since according to my rough calculations those 3 nations together account for a majority of the world's citizens represented by democratically elected governments, so if they have something to say - even on our turf of Internet governance - maybe we should listen. 3) Now turning very realpolitik - the General Assembly is not the Security Council. Those 3 nations have a very practical reason to wish to get whatever they are proposing to the GA asap. Since realpolitik 101 means - USG can't stop that hearing from taking place. And neither can ICANN, IETF etc; or the International Chamber of Commerce, none of whom have standing there. 4) Hence, and thus my suggestion for a different approach on the part of CS than has been suggested heretofore - a) yes do focus on strengthening IGF asap; if that had been done already maybe the IBSA initiative would not have gained steam quite as quickly as it has. (Hence my advice for those now hoping to slow the CIRP: then do try to strengthen IGF, since its recommendations would of course in the first instance be fed into the existing bodies such as ICANN etc, which could perhaps make a show of welcoming IGF input to seek to undermine CIRP...whether that will work or not too soon to say; but limiting IGF from evolving I suggest, plays into the hands of those suggesting something more is needed. b) IF a CIRP gains traction between the IBSA governments and the GA, where (cough cough) at the OECD ICCP meeting last week all the major multinationals were projecting 80% of the growth in demand for - their - products would be coming from (emerging markets) over the next X years...well to make my hint explicit, there is a changing balance of power and simply objecting to - emerging markets - having more of a say in future; is basically, irrelevant to the most Realpolitik game of all, in world markets. So to return to CS interests in navigating these tidal forces...simply sticking to our champagne or red wine @OECD...and suggesting to the rest we already live in the best of all possible Internet governance worlds....is the opposite of being in touch with reality. (NOTE: I am not endorsing any specific line of anything proposed thus far - I'm just saying - it would be foolish for CS not to fully engage in the next stage of the game, wherever it leads...even possibly to something....new in Internet governance. Whatever it might be called, and however well or poorly CS is treated there. Since if we don;t play, we already know we are out of the game, and will not be treated well.) My 5 cents. Lee ________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] on behalf of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 5:28 PM To: William Drake Cc: Governance List Subject: [governance] Re: Indian proposal => "IGF improvements" Dear Bill, This linkage you said that the indians have made between the two processes (EC and IGF improvements) is not at all new. The relation between the processes have been largely discussed in IGF workshops this year and has been mentioned in CSTD WG before. Evidently, an outcome oriented IGF would be a good way to feed discussions into any other organizations/bodies, including a mechanism of EC, if it comes into existance.If an EC mechanism is created, I would never want it to disregard IGF's inputs, would you? My point on my last message was that in any given scenario, and regardless of what happens to the EC proposal, having a more outcome oriented IGF is a good thing. If you disagree with that, could you comment on how outcomes could be negative on the 3 scenarios I mentioned? Another point: to affirm, as you did, that indian proposal tabled on the GA killed the possibility of a more outcome-oriented IGF in CSTD WG is not logical. EC does not derive from a more outcome oriented IGF. EC may happen without any improvements to the IGF (which would be the worst scenario ever, in my opinion). So both processes are connected, but, I repeat, they are different processes. If actors start to block discussions here in geneva because they did not like indian proposal in the GA, I am sorry, but they are the ones that will be hampering improvements, and they are the ones that will be killing the future of the IGF. I have just arrived and I am really tired, but hope this message is understandable ;) Hope to have (good) news tomorrow. Marilia On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:16 AM, William Drake > wrote: Hi Marilia Since you and our other reps will soon be in Geneva for the WGIGF meeting, it seems timely to circle back to this thread. On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: I would like to focus on what Bill has mentioned. I believe it is a very important topic, given the fact that we are close to the CSTD WG meeting and "outcomes" will be an important topic: This is a barrier I wish we could somehow overcome. As long as developing country intergovernmental efforts on EC and in the ITU appear to have intergovernmental control as their end game and the IGF is getting tactically linked to this as you noted, one imagines the TC, business, and a lot of governments will remain wedded to the fear that an IGF that does more than meet and chat once a year would necessarily get leveraged to advance that agenda. And CS proponents of more intensive, structured and "outcome" oriented dialogues will remain isolated and frustrated. If intergovernmental control could be taken off the table, at least outside the ITU, that might help to make "IGF improvements" a less divisive topic. I think we should separate the two topics, IGF improvements and enhanced cooperation. They are related, but they are different topics. And I personally think that a more outcome oriented IGF would be beneficial with our without the implementation of enhanced cooperation. I wish it were otherwise, but they have been very closely related since CS first started advocating an IGF in 2004 and will be more so going forward. We were told by several people here that nobody should be concerned about the Rio proposal because it was just a draft and of course the 3 governments would be fully taking on board the opposition voiced by virtually everyone who spoke to it in the Nairobi CIR session. I therefore asked why the Tshwane Declaration didn't just come out and take the UN oversight body concept off the table if that was true. Now we have the answer—it wasn't. Irrespective of any stakeholder views, the Indian government has ploughed ahead and formally proposed almost precisely what the "just a draft" said (actually it's worse—the Indian language adds to the list of functions, "Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies"…this to be done by 50 governments that meets for two weeks a year for ten six hour days). And they did this in a purely intergovernmental setting where stakeholder views are duly ignored. One might add that I asked the indian representative twice on stage whether/when a proposal might go to the GA and got evasive answers. Since this was done a couple weeks after Nairobi, one has to assume that they'd already decided and just weren't going to say it in a multistakeholder setting where people might raise questions, which strikes me as rather indicative of how we can expect all this to be handled going forward. So now we have been allowed to see the Indian proposal, and it says inter alia that "An improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP, will ensure a stronger and more effective complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF." So let's no longer pretend that the two issues can be viewed separately. The Indian proposal for IGF improvements that you and some others have championed here has been directly linked to the establishment of a UN body for enhanced cooperation by the Indian government. To me this is a pity, because the former does have some good ideas that if decoupled from an intergovernmental end game on EC would have made the IGF more useful and closer to what some of us hoped for back in 2004. But the linkage has been spelled out, and I strongly suspect the Indian IGF improvement proposals are now dead on arrival. Why would all the actors that oppose intergovernmental control support IGF proposals that are designed to enable IGF to feed into an intergovernmental control mechanism? India has given away the game that these actors always insisted was really being played behind the scenes. We are probably now in for an unproductive WGIGF process. I suspect that for the next half year we'll be getting frustrated emails from you and our other reps about how the TC, business, and non-G77/China governments are blocking this or that proposal for more structured dialogues, working groups, outputs, etc. It is unclear that CS will be able to articulate some sort of third way that would make the IGF more than an annual chat fest without this being viewed as part of a larger and more important battle, especially when some of our representatives are closely identified with the intergovernmental agenda. At the moment i'm not too hopeful, but would be interested to hear discussion of ways in which this could be done. Cheers, Bill -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Oct 30 21:09:19 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:09:19 +0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CDD1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20111028054943.GA25885@vortex.com>,<398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4EAAB6F3.3010002@cis-india.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4EACF94A.4050307@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CDD1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4EADF53F.2060305@ciroap.org> On 10/31/2011 02:47 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > we might still expect that its policies may be "somewhat less bad than > the status quo". But because of its multi-stakeholder character, we > can hope for much more: that civil society will finally have a and > positive real impact on policies such as those that are being > developed right now, outside of any transnational multi-stakeholder > framework, that are destroying the Internet as we know it. > > */[Milton L Mueller] This statement re-convinces me that you don't > have a good grasp of the political realities. Sorry. /* > > */First, give me an example of what specific policies would be better > if the UN were involved and the number of states were broadened. Just > one would do. > /* > There is a whole literature full of examples. Internet governance as a field of study in international relations is based around regime theory. It is fundamental to this theory that states will come together and cooperate in a regime even where this does not always coincide directly with their domestic interests. The existence of the regime itself has a value which counterbalances domestic considerations. I won't go into the theory here because you probably know it better than me, and as far as the specific examples you've asked for I can only speculate, but don't consider it implausible that if a new instrument were agreed that outlawed state-sponsored cyberterrorism, this would influence domestic policy on its use amongst member states - just as the Chemical Weapons Convention has done. Let me be frank. I don't like the CIRP proposal as it exists now. It has major problems. One of those you've raised yourself, that governments are represented twice - once on their own account, and again through the intergovernmental advisory group. We would need to do a lot to get this proposal into shape. Ideally, I think we should be asking that each of the advisory groups should have a veto of any recommendation that goes forward. (In a way, this is a variation of the consociational model that I advocated in my doctorate and since.) This will narrow the range of issues on which the CIRP can produce recommendations, but it will also avoid the worst dangers of this new body producing a rights-infringing document on Internet security or the like. But if we are to advocate for such changes, we need to avoid throwing up our hands and dismissing the CIRP proposal as a matter of principle. That is why I have focussed my energies so far on comparing the potential of this proposal, done right, to the inadequacies of the status quo. It is not that I am blind to its deficiencies, but that I fear others will be blind to its promise if they reject it too readily. +5c to Lee McKnight's last mail. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @Consumers_Int Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2309 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Oct 30 23:47:23 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 05:47:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <4EADF53F.2060305@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <3A7C9BEC00A4473088CE351FAA608EC0@acer6e40e97492> +1 M -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 3:09 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet On 10/31/2011 02:47 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: we might still expect that its policies may be "somewhat less bad than the status quo". But because of its multi-stakeholder character, we can hope for much more: that civil society will finally have a and positive real impact on policies such as those that are being developed right now, outside of any transnational multi-stakeholder framework, that are destroying the Internet as we know it. [Milton L Mueller] This statement re-convinces me that you don't have a good grasp of the political realities. Sorry. First, give me an example of what specific policies would be better if the UN were involved and the number of states were broadened. Just one would do. There is a whole literature full of examples. Internet governance as a field of study in international relations is based around regime theory. It is fundamental to this theory that states will come together and cooperate in a regime even where this does not always coincide directly with their domestic interests. The existence of the regime itself has a value which counterbalances domestic considerations. I won't go into the theory here because you probably know it better than me, and as far as the specific examples you've asked for I can only speculate, but don't consider it implausible that if a new instrument were agreed that outlawed state-sponsored cyberterrorism, this would influence domestic policy on its use amongst member states - just as the Chemical Weapons Convention has done. Let me be frank. I don't like the CIRP proposal as it exists now. It has major problems. One of those you've raised yourself, that governments are represented twice - once on their own account, and again through the intergovernmental advisory group. We would need to do a lot to get this proposal into shape. Ideally, I think we should be asking that each of the advisory groups should have a veto of any recommendation that goes forward. (In a way, this is a variation of the consociational model that I advocated in my doctorate and since.) This will narrow the range of issues on which the CIRP can produce recommendations, but it will also avoid the worst dangers of this new body producing a rights-infringing document on Internet security or the like. But if we are to advocate for such changes, we need to avoid throwing up our hands and dismissing the CIRP proposal as a matter of principle. That is why I have focussed my energies so far on comparing the potential of this proposal, done right, to the inadequacies of the status quo. It is not that I am blind to its deficiencies, but that I fear others will be blind to its promise if they reject it too readily. +5c to Lee McKnight's last mail. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @Consumers_Int Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani at isd-rc.org Mon Oct 31 02:29:12 2011 From: kabani at isd-rc.org (Asif Kabani) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:29:12 +0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <4EAD7FC5.8010304@apc.org> References: <20111028054943.GA25885@vortex.com> <398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4EAAB6F3.3010002@cis-india.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4EACF94A.4050307@ciroap.org> <4EAD7FC5.8010304@apc.org> Message-ID: Anriette, Good point, I agree with you that final decision with be General Assembly? Regards On 30 October 2011 21:48, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > As we have seen from the OECD which has a similar mechanism for > non-governmental stakeholder participation, ultimately the power remains > with powerful. These are sometimes governments, sometimes commercial > interest groups. Often government positions are assumed, particularly in > the case of the US, based on lobbying from such interest groups in DC. > > Just giving other stakeholder groups the opportunity to give inputs is > not enough and will not ensure effective multi-stakeholder > participation. Good that there is a proposal to have a working group to > discuss this.. but the overall structure and decision-flow proposed ends > up with the GA and it is therefore by definition not multi-stakeholder. > > This might be OK for some of the decisions clustered in the rough scope > of work for this committee.. but not for most of the work it appears to > want to take on. > > I agree with Jeremy that the status quo is not working, but I don't see > this committee being as open to civil society influence as you seem to > think it might be. Similar modalities in the OECD is not achieving that > degree of influence for civil society, and I don't see that this will > either. > > Perhaps, with a much, much narrower and more focused scope of work such > a committee could constitute an improvement on current > 'intergovernmental' processes in the UN and the GAC. > > Anriette > > > > > On 30/10/11 09:14, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 10/30/2011 03:20 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> People in civil society, such as Jeremy, who rightly see some of the > >> hypocrisy underlying defenses of the status quo but who fail to see > >> the far more serious threat of destroying the more open, organically > >> Developed Internet Institutions (ODII) by sovereignty-based > >> intergovernmental hierarchies are deeply out of touch with political > >> reality on a global basis, or are letting their anger get the better > >> of them and losing perspective completely. We do not have to choose > >> between the status quo and the UN (an earlier, kruftier status quo). > >> Everyone needs to write that on the chalkboard 50 times. > > > > In fact my attitude to this proposal is informed very strongly by > > political reality. You might recall that the IGC's original response to > > WGIG's IGF proposal was that the the IGF should be situated outside of > > the United Nations, too. If it had been, would it even still exist > > now? Yet the IGF is not the earlier, kruftier version of the UN that > > the IGC perhaps feared when advocating that it be situated outside the > UN. > > > > For the last few years I have taken heat for my idea that the IGF, if it > > is to be able to make recommendations as its mandate requires, should > > before allow governments (and the other stakeholder groups too) a power > > of veto over those recommendations before they are issued. That > > position, and my response to the CIRP proposal,* are influenced strongly > > by the same political realities. > > > > I am not one of those social democrats of whom you speak, who believe > > that intergovernmental organisations represent the will of the people > > (in fact, I don't even know any such social democrats). But I do accept > > that "enhanced cooperation" was never going to be just the IGF on > > steroids: it was always going to be government-led. As such, situating > > it in the UN is not preferable, merely inevitable. > > > > The UN is, doubtless, as corrupt as the United States Congress or the > > Chinese Community Party. But to its credit, it does play such > > plutocracies and dictatorships against each other, resulting in the > > curbing of their worst excesses. Consider for example, how much worse > > the WIPO Copyright Treaties or ACTA would have been, if the United > > States, EU and Japan had been able to draft these on their own. > > > > So even if the CIRP was purely intergovernmental, we might still expect > > that its policies may be "somewhat less bad than the status quo". But > > because of its multi-stakeholder character, we can hope for much more: > > that civil society will finally have a and positive real impact on > > policies such as those that are being developed right now, outside of > > any transnational multi-stakeholder framework, that are destroying the > > Internet as we know it. > > > > * http://jere.my/l/1t > > > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > Project Coordinator* > > Consumers International > > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > > Malaysia > > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent > > and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member > > organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international > > movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > > www.consumersinternational.org > > Twitter @Consumers_Int > > > > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > > . Don't > > print this email unless necessary. > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Asif Kabani Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Oct 31 03:22:52 2011 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:22:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Indian proposal => "IGF improvements" In-Reply-To: References: <4b2cbc0e-bc83-4238-ba44-a5ac4b52f2d7@email.android.com> <3483B830-C6BA-4D67-8327-9C59CB52BCC7@uzh.ch> <4E9F0812.9000104@apc.org> <97790962-6914-4C52-959E-18C163B8488F@uzh.ch> <4EA0132B.4060708@cafonso.ca> <999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch> <4EA14A95.4020404@apc.org> <3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch> <549EFAF4-B302-4E15-B666-7C167CE71AB8@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <06B943D5-5A15-4E16-9C2C-726FE05279B5@uzh.ch> Hi Marilia On Oct 30, 2011, at 10:28 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear Bill, > > This linkage you said that the indians have made between the two processes (EC and IGF improvements) is not at all new. Right, as I said, goes back to 2004, and has loomed in the background shaping perceptions and dynamics ever since. Getting more explicit and more problematic now. > The relation between the processes have been largely discussed in IGF workshops this year and has been mentioned in CSTD WG before. Evidently, an outcome oriented IGF would be a good way to feed discussions into any other organizations/bodies, including a mechanism of EC, if it comes into existance.If an EC mechanism is created, I would never want it to disregard IGF's inputs, would you? I would not want an intergovernmental EC mechanism to be created, therefore I would not want the IGF restructured for the purpose of providing inputs into it. But IGF discussions have already influenced other sphere, e.g. the OECD's decision to allow TC and CS participation, some of ICANN's internal reforms, etc. > > My point on my last message was that in any given scenario, and regardless of what happens to the EC proposal, having a more outcome oriented IGF is a good thing. If you disagree with that, could you comment on how outcomes could be negative on the 3 scenarios I mentioned? I have been for a more outcome oriented IGF since before there was an IGF. But if there is an intergovernmental EC mechanism soaking up all the attention of governments and generating an untold number of irresolvable conflicts, I agree with Milton that IGF could end up marginalized. Many G77 governments have repeatedly demonstrated that they don't particularly care about having a space to talk to stakeholders and engage in collective learning. What they want is what's been proposed, an UNCTAD of the Internet that nominally can facilitate treaty negotiations and GA resolutions. The model here would not look like OECD deliberations. It'd be more like the CSTD. > > > Another point: to affirm, as you did, that indian proposal tabled on the GA killed the possibility of a more outcome-oriented IGF in CSTD WG is not logical. EC does not derive from a more outcome oriented IGF. EC may happen without any improvements to the IGF (which would be the worst scenario ever, in my opinion). So both processes are connected, but, I repeat, they are different processes. It is very logical. You never seem to take into account how the stakeholders and governments that don't agree with you perceive things. You can insist all you want that there's no connection and outcome-oriented improvements should happen irrespective of the EC discussion, but they've been saying for years they see that as linked to the intergovernmental end game, and they act accordingly. And now that India's formally linked its two proposals, they have all the more reason to frustrate you on the IGF piece. > > If actors start to block discussions here in geneva because they did not like indian proposal in the GA, I am sorry, but they are the ones that will be hampering improvements, and they are the ones that will be killing the future of the IGF. Strongly disagree. They are reacting to facts on the ground. Take the intergovernmental EC proposal off the table and discussions of an improved IGF should get easier because it's not threatening. Keep it on the table, nothing will move. It'd be helpful if you could keep that in mind going forward when you're sending us emails complaining they won't agree to your agenda. I have a suggestion for you. Sit down and talk with said actors about how they see the linkages and why they resist the sort of proposals India has put forward. > > I have just arrived and I am really tired, but hope this message is understandable ;) No worries, I get where you're coming from. > > Hope to have (good) news tomorrow. Indeed. Cheers, Bill > > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:16 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Marilia > > Since you and our other reps will soon be in Geneva for the WGIGF meeting, it seems timely to circle back to this thread. > > On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> I would like to focus on what Bill has mentioned. I believe it is a very important topic, given the fact that we are close to the CSTD WG meeting and "outcomes" will be an important topic: >> >> >> This is a barrier I wish we could somehow overcome. As long as developing country intergovernmental efforts on EC and in the ITU appear to have intergovernmental control as their end game and the IGF is getting tactically linked to this as you noted, one imagines the TC, business, and a lot of governments will remain wedded to the fear that an IGF that does more than meet and chat once a year would necessarily get leveraged to advance that agenda. And CS proponents of more intensive, structured and "outcome" oriented dialogues will remain isolated and frustrated. If intergovernmental control could be taken off the table, at least outside the ITU, that might help to make "IGF improvements" a less divisive topic. >> >> I think we should separate the two topics, IGF improvements and enhanced cooperation. They are related, but they are different topics. And I personally think that a more outcome oriented IGF would be beneficial with our without the implementation of enhanced cooperation. > > I wish it were otherwise, but they have been very closely related since CS first started advocating an IGF in 2004 and will be more so going forward. We were told by several people here that nobody should be concerned about the Rio proposal because it was just a draft and of course the 3 governments would be fully taking on board the opposition voiced by virtually everyone who spoke to it in the Nairobi CIR session. I therefore asked why the Tshwane Declaration didn't just come out and take the UN oversight body concept off the table if that was true. Now we have the answer—it wasn't. > > Irrespective of any stakeholder views, the Indian government has ploughed ahead and formally proposed almost precisely what the "just a draft" said (actually it's worse—the Indian language adds to the list of functions, "Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies"…this to be done by 50 governments that meets for two weeks a year for ten six hour days). And they did this in a purely intergovernmental setting where stakeholder views are duly ignored. One might add that I asked the indian representative twice on stage whether/when a proposal might go to the GA and got evasive answers. Since this was done a couple weeks after Nairobi, one has to assume that they'd already decided and just weren't going to say it in a multistakeholder setting where people might raise questions, which strikes me as rather indicative of how we can expect all this to be handled going forward. > > So now we have been allowed to see the Indian proposal, and it says inter alia that "An improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP, will ensure a stronger and more effective complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF." So let's no longer pretend that the two issues can be viewed separately. The Indian proposal for IGF improvements that you and some others have championed here has been directly linked to the establishment of a UN body for enhanced cooperation by the Indian government. To me this is a pity, because the former does have some good ideas that if decoupled from an intergovernmental end game on EC would have made the IGF more useful and closer to what some of us hoped for back in 2004. But the linkage has been spelled out, and I strongly suspect the Indian IGF improvement proposals are now dead on arrival. Why would all the actors that oppose intergovernmental control support IGF proposals that are designed to enable IGF to feed into an intergovernmental control mechanism? India has given away the game that these actors always insisted was really being played behind the scenes. > > We are probably now in for an unproductive WGIGF process. I suspect that for the next half year we'll be getting frustrated emails from you and our other reps about how the TC, business, and non-G77/China governments are blocking this or that proposal for more structured dialogues, working groups, outputs, etc. It is unclear that CS will be able to articulate some sort of third way that would make the IGF more than an annual chat fest without this being viewed as part of a larger and more important battle, especially when some of our representatives are closely identified with the intergovernmental agenda. At the moment i'm not too hopeful, but would be interested to hear discussion of ways in which this could be done. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at Mon Oct 31 04:25:32 2011 From: Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at (Philipp Mirtl) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:25:32 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 References: <3172D7E4-06AF-4395-A065-C23595C5009C@acm.org> Message-ID: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A04C5A70@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> Hi Avri My apologies for my late response. Alexander Klimburg, whom I work with, is attending the London conference on invitation of Chatham House (which is resposible for the civil society engagement component of the conference). The focus was originally to be Foreign Secretary Haguge's 7 principles on cybersecurity, mentioned at the Munich security conference. Alexander thinks this is going to be particulary interesting as one or even two of Hague's principles were directly related to freedom of access to the Internet, which was clearly interpreted differently in the aftermath of the England riots (much to Russia's and China's glee). In any case, the expectations at the moment are not very high. Alexander says he has a lot of regard for the discussion on this forum, and if there is interest on this thread he could write a very short report on the conference, albeit from a "national cybersecurity" point of view. He does say, however, not to expect too much - both from the conference itself as well as his report - there might not be very much worthwhile to report on. Best regards from Vienna, Philipp -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: So 30.10.2011 17:46 An: IGC Betreff: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 I apologize for sending out the wrong link at first. I had heard about the Chatham House event sitting in a conference meeting, was horrified and without having the correct information wanted to make a wider group of people aware - since the time is so short. And what I did was confused things. but at least the issue is now on the table. And fortunately there were people to correct it. Thanks to Wolfgang and Ben for correcting my erroneous sky is falling message. I still think it may be falling, but not from the direction I was pointing. So, is there any official information on this event other than the Register articles? Is anyone on this list participating who can give more information? It does appear that they are doing a pretty good job of keeping this thing secret. Why is that? avri Ps. One useful piece of info in the Register article: > The event will be held on 1 and 2 November, watch out for The Register's foray into live-tweeting from the conference floor by following c. ® We should be ready to comment on the info that comes out of this event. Quickly and loudly. On 30 Oct 2011, at 09:14, Rui Correia wrote: > Yes, Ben is right on the need to set the two apart. It would be useful for those commenting to state which event they are referring to. > > The link sent by Wolfgang is for an event co-sponsored by Chatham House, which has done great work in human rights, exposing corruption, etc etc. I would find it odd to see them involved in an event in collusion with governments/ business to shut out CS. > > Rui > > > On 30 October 2011 15:01, Ben Wagner wrote: > To clarify the difference, there is a difference between the two events. The first link by Avri isn't the offical conference, it's the inter-governmental event on Nov. 1-2 CS should be concerned about. > > To provide a little more context to the event: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/26/cyber_hague_event/ > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/20/bring_economics_into_freedom_debate/ > > From everything I have heard so far this will be a very high level event attempting to focus the debate on cyber security at the expense of most other internet governance issues. > > Ben > > > > On 30 October 2011 11:21, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > This event sounds very much like a trade show on security, with a major sponsor Endace, a New Zealand company looking for worldwide expansion. Somehow, advertising the event smacks of show business, one day boondoggling in London for £995 + VAT registration. Are the good times coming back ? > - - - > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. > > http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ > > As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil society representation, though a fair amount of business - the business especially who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of so called security. > > Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? > > avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > _________________________ > Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 > Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 > > I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers > Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > > _______________ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Oct 31 04:47:19 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:47:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <4EAD7FC5.8010304@apc.org> References: <20111028054943.GA25885@vortex.com> <398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4EAAB6F3.3010002@cis-india.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4EACF94A.4050307@ciroap.org> <4EAD7FC5.8010304@apc.org> Message-ID: I quite agree with Anriette's observation below. IGC should push the multi-stakeholder policy dialogue as the overarching outcome of Tunis Agenda on Internet Governance and enhance or improve this, not the other way around. izumi 2011/10/31 Anriette Esterhuysen : > Just giving other stakeholder groups the opportunity to give inputs is > not enough and will not ensure effective multi-stakeholder > participation. Good that there is a proposal to have a working group to > discuss this.. but the overall structure and decision-flow proposed ends > up with the GA and it is therefore by definition not multi-stakeholder. > > This might be OK for some of the decisions clustered in the rough scope > of work for this committee.. but not for most of the work it appears to > want to take on. > > I agree with Jeremy that the status quo is not working, but I don't see > this committee being as open to civil society influence as you seem to > think it might be. Similar modalities in the OECD is not achieving that > degree of influence for civil society, and I don't see that this will > either. > > Perhaps, with a much, much narrower and more focused scope of work such > a committee could constitute an improvement on current > 'intergovernmental' processes in the UN and the GAC. > > Anriette > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 05:47:23 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:47:23 +1300 Subject: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A04C5A70@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> References: <3172D7E4-06AF-4395-A065-C23595C5009C@acm.org> <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A04C5A70@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> Message-ID: Dear All, IHaving just arrived in Suva, Fiji, I now have the chance to read and respond to threads soon. I must say it has been great reading all the interesting threads etc. This is excellent Philipp and it would be great to read his short report if it is available and for "free" of course. Best, Sala On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Philipp Mirtl wrote: > ** > > Hi Avri > > My apologies for my late response. Alexander Klimburg, whom I work with, > is attending the London conference on invitation of Chatham House (which is > resposible for the civil society engagement component of the conference). > The focus was originally to be Foreign Secretary Haguge's 7 principles on > cybersecurity, mentioned at the Munich security conference. Alexander > thinks this is going to be particulary interesting as one or even two of > Hague's principles were directly related to freedom of access to the > Internet, which was clearly interpreted differently in the aftermath of the > England riots (much to Russia's and China's glee). In any case, the > expectations at the moment are not very high. > > Alexander says he has a lot of regard for the discussion on this forum, > and if there is interest on this thread he could write a very short report > on the conference, albeit from a "national cybersecurity" point of view. He > does say, however, not to expect too much - both from the conference itself > as well as his report - there might not be very much worthwhile to report > on. > > Best regards from Vienna, > > Philipp > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: So 30.10.2011 17:46 > An: IGC > Betreff: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] > Cyber Security 2011 > > > > I apologize for sending out the wrong link at first. > > I had heard about the Chatham House event sitting in a conference meeting, > was horrified and without having the correct information wanted to make a > wider group of people aware - since the time is so short. And what I did > was confused things. > > but at least the issue is now on the table. And fortunately there were > people to correct it. > > Thanks to Wolfgang and Ben for correcting my erroneous sky is falling > message. I still think it may be falling, but not from the direction I was > pointing. > > So, is there any official information on this event other than the > Register articles? Is anyone on this list participating who can give more > information? > It does appear that they are doing a pretty good job of keeping this thing > secret. Why is that? > > avri > > Ps. > > One useful piece of info in the Register article: > > > The event will be held on 1 and 2 November, watch out for The Register's > foray into live-tweeting from the conference floor by following c. ® > > We should be ready to comment on the info that comes out of this event. > Quickly and loudly. > > On 30 Oct 2011, at 09:14, Rui Correia wrote: > > > Yes, Ben is right on the need to set the two apart. It would be useful > for those commenting to state which event they are referring to. > > > > The link sent by Wolfgang is for an event co-sponsored by Chatham House, > which has done great work in human rights, exposing corruption, etc etc. I > would find it odd to see them involved in an event in collusion with > governments/ business to shut out CS. > > > > Rui > > > > > > On 30 October 2011 15:01, Ben Wagner wrote: > > To clarify the difference, there is a difference between the two events. > The first link by Avri isn't the offical conference, it's the > inter-governmental event on Nov. 1-2 CS should be concerned about. > > > > To provide a little more context to the event: > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/26/cyber_hague_event/ > > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/20/bring_economics_into_freedom_debate/ > > > > From everything I have heard so far this will be a very high level event > attempting to focus the debate on cyber security at the expense of most > other internet governance issues. > > > > Ben > > > > > > > > On 30 October 2011 11:21, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > This event sounds very much like a trade show on security, with a major > sponsor Endace, a New Zealand company looking for worldwide expansion. > Somehow, advertising the event smacks of show business, one day > boondoggling in London for £995 + VAT registration. Are the good times > coming back ? > > - - - > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. > > > > http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ > > > > As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil > society representation, though a fair amount of business - the business > especially who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of > so called security. > > > > Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? > > > > avri > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > _________________________ > > Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 > > Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 > > > > I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African > numbers > > Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através > dos meus números sul-africanos > > > > Rui Correia > > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > > Angola Liaison Consultant > > > > _______________ > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From DThompson1 at GOV.NU.CA Mon Oct 31 06:04:48 2011 From: DThompson1 at GOV.NU.CA (Thompson, Darlene) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:04:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Disclosure of Involvement In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <97657EF9087F754BBF54D3D0322DAD0F03DBD5EC@IQALUITMX05.nunavut.local> Sala, You have my full support. You bring excellent skills to both groups and we are both lucky to have you in leadership roles in both. The world needs more strong women like you! Congratulations! Darlene Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 dthompson at gov.nu.ca ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] on behalf of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: Izumi AIZU Subject: [governance] Re: Disclosure of Involvement Tiny correction to my early statement: "The ALAC through the APRALO is the way of doing that" should read "My involvement in the ALAC through APRALO is a way of doing that" Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: Dear Colleagues, I am sending this as co-coordinator of this list. I am as of officially 2 hours ago the new Asia Australasian Pacific Regional At Large Organisation (APRALO) representative to the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) within ICANN. This is by virtue of my being a member of the Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society which is an ISOC Chapter which is an accredited At Large Structure (ALS). This is a voluntary involvement and is unpaid aside from travel to ICANN conferences. I will be able to contribute directly to technical policies and also to encourage people to participate in the development of policies and processes. I am also on record for suggesting encouraging strengthening corporate governance mechanisms within the ICANN. I am not an employee of ICANN and I believe that because it is an organisation that deals with the development of key policies. I will say that all the policies identified in the Working Group on Internet Governance Report (WGIG 2005) are policies discussed within the ICANN space. I want to be active in contributing in policy discussions to ensure that consumer and end user interests are looked after. The ALAC through the APRALO is the way of doing that. As co-coordinator, I see it only fitting that I send disclose this. I am also active in trying to build outreach and capacity development within the Asia Pacific in policy processes. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 06:08:05 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 05:38:05 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: Disclosure of Involvement In-Reply-To: <97657EF9087F754BBF54D3D0322DAD0F03DBD5EC@IQALUITMX05.nunavut.local> References: <97657EF9087F754BBF54D3D0322DAD0F03DBD5EC@IQALUITMX05.nunavut.local> Message-ID: +1 Ginger (Virginia) Paque Diplo Foundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org* On 31 October 2011 05:34, Thompson, Darlene wrote: > Sala, > > You have my full support. You bring excellent skills to both groups and > we are both lucky to have you in leadership roles in both. The world needs > more strong women like you! > > Congratulations! > > Darlene > > Darlene A. Thompson > CAP Administrator > N-CAP/Department of Education > P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 > Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 > Phone: (867) 975-5631 > Fax: (867) 975-5610 > dthompson at gov.nu.ca > ________________________________________ > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] on behalf of > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:03 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: Izumi AIZU > Subject: [governance] Re: Disclosure of Involvement > > Tiny correction to my early statement: > > "The ALAC through the APRALO is the way of doing that" should read "My > involvement in the ALAC through APRALO is a way of doing that" > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > I am sending this as co-coordinator of this list. I am as of officially 2 > hours ago the new Asia Australasian Pacific Regional At Large Organisation > (APRALO) representative to the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) within > ICANN. This is by virtue of my being a member of the Pacific Islands > Chapter of the Internet Society which is an ISOC Chapter which is an > accredited At Large Structure (ALS). This is a voluntary involvement and is > unpaid aside from travel to ICANN conferences. > > I will be able to contribute directly to technical policies and also to > encourage people to participate in the development of policies and > processes. I am also on record for suggesting encouraging strengthening > corporate governance mechanisms within the ICANN. I am not an employee of > ICANN and I believe that because it is an organisation that deals with the > development of key policies. > > I will say that all the policies identified in the Working Group on > Internet Governance Report (WGIG 2005) are policies discussed within the > ICANN space. I want to be active in contributing in policy discussions to > ensure that consumer and end user interests are looked after. The ALAC > through the APRALO is the way of doing that. > > As co-coordinator, I see it only fitting that I send disclose this. I am > also active in trying to build outreach and capacity development within the > Asia Pacific in policy processes. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 06:31:19 2011 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:31:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: These reports were on the BBC this morning, in case they are any help. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15516959 GCHQ chief reports 'disturbing' cyber attacks on UK http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12371056 William Hague: UK is under cyber-attack http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15355739 UK seeks 'consensus' at cyberspace conference Deirdre On 30 October 2011 09:01, Ben Wagner wrote: > To clarify the difference, there is a difference between the two events. > The first link by Avri isn't the offical conference, it's the > inter-governmental event on Nov. 1-2 CS should be concerned about. > > To provide a little more context to the event: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/26/cyber_hague_event/ > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/20/bring_economics_into_freedom_debate/ > > From everything I have heard so far this will be a very high level event > attempting to focus the debate on cyber security at the expense of most > other internet governance issues. > > Ben > > > > On 30 October 2011 11:21, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > >> This event sounds very much like a trade show on security, with a major >> sponsor Endace, a New Zealand company looking for worldwide expansion. >> Somehow, advertising the event smacks of show business, one day >> boondoggling in London for £995 + VAT registration. Are the good times >> coming back ? >> - - - >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. >>> >>> http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ >>> >>> As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil >>> society representation, though a fair amount of business - the business >>> especially who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of >>> so called security. >>> >>> Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Oct 31 07:12:27 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:12:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF improvement - just started Message-ID: IGC CSTD Hi, The CSTD WG started its third meeting this morning in Geneva, There are some new faces, mainly from the government delegations. The new Chair, Peter Magor, gave summary presentation of the WG's past work and also issues/questions on the table. He then asked if the WG like to discuss all issues in the plenary (only), or having 3 small groups to deal with specific issues, inter-twined with plenary discussion. Several member states wanted to keep only plenary as they do not have more than one member and don't want to be excluded. Most civil society and private sector members supported the small group idea. In the end, the Chair proposed to go with plenary first and see how it goes and then consider, if so deemed to consider again. Now it is15 min coffee brake. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Oct 31 07:16:05 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:16:05 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 References: <3172D7E4-06AF-4395-A065-C23595C5009C@acm.org> <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A04C5A70@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C69F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Yes Phlipp Alexanders reporting would be very useful. wolfgabg ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Philipp Mirtl Gesendet: Mo 31.10.2011 09:25 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria; IGC Betreff: AW: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 Hi Avri My apologies for my late response. Alexander Klimburg, whom I work with, is attending the London conference on invitation of Chatham House (which is resposible for the civil society engagement component of the conference). The focus was originally to be Foreign Secretary Haguge's 7 principles on cybersecurity, mentioned at the Munich security conference. Alexander thinks this is going to be particulary interesting as one or even two of Hague's principles were directly related to freedom of access to the Internet, which was clearly interpreted differently in the aftermath of the England riots (much to Russia's and China's glee). In any case, the expectations at the moment are not very high. Alexander says he has a lot of regard for the discussion on this forum, and if there is interest on this thread he could write a very short report on the conference, albeit from a "national cybersecurity" point of view. He does say, however, not to expect too much - both from the conference itself as well as his report - there might not be very much worthwhile to report on. Best regards from Vienna, Philipp -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: So 30.10.2011 17:46 An: IGC Betreff: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 I apologize for sending out the wrong link at first. I had heard about the Chatham House event sitting in a conference meeting, was horrified and without having the correct information wanted to make a wider group of people aware - since the time is so short. And what I did was confused things. but at least the issue is now on the table. And fortunately there were people to correct it. Thanks to Wolfgang and Ben for correcting my erroneous sky is falling message. I still think it may be falling, but not from the direction I was pointing. So, is there any official information on this event other than the Register articles? Is anyone on this list participating who can give more information? It does appear that they are doing a pretty good job of keeping this thing secret. Why is that? avri Ps. One useful piece of info in the Register article: > The event will be held on 1 and 2 November, watch out for The Register's foray into live-tweeting from the conference floor by following c. ® We should be ready to comment on the info that comes out of this event. Quickly and loudly. On 30 Oct 2011, at 09:14, Rui Correia wrote: > Yes, Ben is right on the need to set the two apart. It would be useful for those commenting to state which event they are referring to. > > The link sent by Wolfgang is for an event co-sponsored by Chatham House, which has done great work in human rights, exposing corruption, etc etc. I would find it odd to see them involved in an event in collusion with governments/ business to shut out CS. > > Rui > > > On 30 October 2011 15:01, Ben Wagner wrote: > To clarify the difference, there is a difference between the two events. The first link by Avri isn't the offical conference, it's the inter-governmental event on Nov. 1-2 CS should be concerned about. > > To provide a little more context to the event: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/26/cyber_hague_event/ > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/20/bring_economics_into_freedom_debate/ > > From everything I have heard so far this will be a very high level event attempting to focus the debate on cyber security at the expense of most other internet governance issues. > > Ben > > > > On 30 October 2011 11:21, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > This event sounds very much like a trade show on security, with a major sponsor Endace, a New Zealand company looking for worldwide expansion. Somehow, advertising the event smacks of show business, one day boondoggling in London for £995 + VAT registration. Are the good times coming back ? > - - - > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. > > http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ > > As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil society representation, though a fair amount of business - the business especially who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of so called security. > > Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? > > avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > _________________________ > Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 > Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 > > I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers > Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > > _______________ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 07:42:43 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 00:42:43 +1300 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF improvement - just started In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Izumi, I hope you are well and it is also interesting following the tweets from those that are there as well via #CSTDWG Let us know if they have live/remote streaming available otherwise we will just watch for your emails and follow the tweets. I am following @sgdickinson and so far it's been very interesting. Best Regards, Sala On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > IGC CSTD > Hi, > The CSTD WG started its third meeting this morning in Geneva, > There are some new faces, mainly from the government delegations. > > The new Chair, Peter Magor, gave summary presentation of the > WG's past work and also issues/questions on the table. > > He then asked if the WG like to discuss all issues in the plenary (only), > or having 3 small groups to deal with specific issues, inter-twined > with plenary discussion. > > Several member states wanted to keep only plenary as they do not > have more than one member and don't want to be excluded. > Most civil society and private sector members supported the small > group idea. > > In the end, the Chair proposed to go with plenary first and see how > it goes and then consider, if so deemed to consider again. > > Now it is15 min coffee brake. > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Oct 31 07:45:22 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:45:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF improvement - just started In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No, though we have requested to open up this meeting to non-contributing observers, which was not accepted by the Chair as he wanted to establish the trust among the members (or member states) first. So, there is no plan for remote participation either. I have to be careful in reporting since this is considered as "closed meeting" and some governments are quite sensitive to these. izumi 2011/10/31 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > Dear Izumi, > I hope you are well and it is also interesting following the tweets from > those that are there as well via #CSTDWG Let us know if they have > live/remote streaming available otherwise we will just watch for your emails > and follow the tweets. I am following @sgdickinson and so far it's been very > interesting. > Best 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 Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at Mon Oct 31 08:54:38 2011 From: Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at (Philipp Mirtl) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:54:38 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C69F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3172D7E4-06AF-4395-A065-C23595C5009C@acm.org> <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A04C5A70@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C69F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A0582592@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> Sure, I will keep you updated on this! philipp -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Gesendet: Montag, 31. Oktober 2011 12:16 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Philipp Mirtl; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria; IGC Betreff: AW: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 Yes Phlipp Alexanders reporting would be very useful. wolfgabg ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Philipp Mirtl Gesendet: Mo 31.10.2011 09:25 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria; IGC Betreff: AW: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 Hi Avri My apologies for my late response. Alexander Klimburg, whom I work with, is attending the London conference on invitation of Chatham House (which is resposible for the civil society engagement component of the conference). The focus was originally to be Foreign Secretary Haguge's 7 principles on cybersecurity, mentioned at the Munich security conference. Alexander thinks this is going to be particulary interesting as one or even two of Hague's principles were directly related to freedom of access to the Internet, which was clearly interpreted differently in the aftermath of the England riots (much to Russia's and China's glee). In any case, the expectations at the moment are not very high. Alexander says he has a lot of regard for the discussion on this forum, and if there is interest on this thread he could write a very short report on the conference, albeit from a "national cybersecurity" point of view. He does say, however, not to expect too much - both from the conference itself as well as his report - there might not be very much worthwhile to report on. Best regards from Vienna, Philipp -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: So 30.10.2011 17:46 An: IGC Betreff: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 I apologize for sending out the wrong link at first. I had heard about the Chatham House event sitting in a conference meeting, was horrified and without having the correct information wanted to make a wider group of people aware - since the time is so short. And what I did was confused things. but at least the issue is now on the table. And fortunately there were people to correct it. Thanks to Wolfgang and Ben for correcting my erroneous sky is falling message. I still think it may be falling, but not from the direction I was pointing. So, is there any official information on this event other than the Register articles? Is anyone on this list participating who can give more information? It does appear that they are doing a pretty good job of keeping this thing secret. Why is that? avri Ps. One useful piece of info in the Register article: > The event will be held on 1 and 2 November, watch out for The > Register's foray into live-tweeting from the conference floor by > following c. ® We should be ready to comment on the info that comes out of this event. Quickly and loudly. On 30 Oct 2011, at 09:14, Rui Correia wrote: > Yes, Ben is right on the need to set the two apart. It would be useful for those commenting to state which event they are referring to. > > The link sent by Wolfgang is for an event co-sponsored by Chatham House, which has done great work in human rights, exposing corruption, etc etc. I would find it odd to see them involved in an event in collusion with governments/ business to shut out CS. > > Rui > > > On 30 October 2011 15:01, Ben Wagner wrote: > To clarify the difference, there is a difference between the two events. The first link by Avri isn't the offical conference, it's the inter-governmental event on Nov. 1-2 CS should be concerned about. > > To provide a little more context to the event: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/26/cyber_hague_event/ > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/20/bring_economics_into_freedom_d > ebate/ > > From everything I have heard so far this will be a very high level event attempting to focus the debate on cyber security at the expense of most other internet governance issues. > > Ben > > > > On 30 October 2011 11:21, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > This event sounds very much like a trade show on security, with a major sponsor Endace, a New Zealand company looking for worldwide expansion. Somehow, advertising the event smacks of show business, one day boondoggling in London for £995 + VAT registration. Are the good times coming back ? > - - - > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. > > http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ > > As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil society representation, though a fair amount of business - the business especially who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of so called security. > > Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? > > avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > _________________________ > Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 Número de Telemóvel na > Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 > > I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South > African numbers Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em > contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison > Consultant > > _______________ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Oct 31 09:28:09 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:28:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] before lunch Message-ID: After the Coffee brake, the CSTD WG agreed on the following points - Categories of Issues to discuss by the WG agreed: A) Shaping the Outcomes of IGF meetings B) Working modalities including open consultation, MAG and Secretariat C) Funding of the IGF D) Participation – broadening E) Linking IGF to other related processes/mechanisms/bodies The new Chair is very committed to reach concrete result, and thus gaining good support and trust from WG members all acrross. So far so good. Now we are at lunch. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 09:34:52 2011 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:34:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] before lunch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Izumi, Enjoy your lunch and thank you for your always excellent sharing/reporting Deirdre On 31 October 2011 09:28, Izumi AIZU wrote: > After the Coffee brake, the CSTD WG agreed on the following points - > > Categories of Issues to discuss by the WG agreed: > > A) Shaping the Outcomes of IGF meetings > B) Working modalities including open consultation, MAG and Secretariat > C) Funding of the IGF > D) Participation – broadening > E) Linking IGF to other related processes/mechanisms/bodies > > The new Chair is very committed to reach concrete result, and thus > gaining good support and trust from WG members all acrross. > So far so good. > > Now we are at lunch. > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 09:37:40 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 02:37:40 +1300 Subject: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A0582592@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> References: <3172D7E4-06AF-4395-A065-C23595C5009C@acm.org> <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A04C5A70@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C69F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A0582592@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> Message-ID: Thanks Philipp, Your post made me look up the principles that Hague was espousing etc and of all the links I went through, I found this report useful although it's a bit old but it makes reference to the current Ministerial event and helps to give a bit of context: http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/02/04/calls-for-geneva-convention-in-cyberspace/ 2011/11/1 Philipp Mirtl > Sure, I will keep you updated on this! > > philipp > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto: > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Gesendet: Montag, 31. Oktober 2011 12:16 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Philipp Mirtl; governance at lists.cpsr.org; > Avri Doria; IGC > Betreff: AW: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] > Cyber Security 2011 > > Yes Phlipp > > Alexanders reporting would be very useful. > > wolfgabg > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Philipp Mirtl > Gesendet: Mo 31.10.2011 09:25 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria; IGC > Betreff: AW: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] > Cyber Security 2011 > > > > Hi Avri > > My apologies for my late response. Alexander Klimburg, whom I work with, > is attending the London conference on invitation of Chatham House (which is > resposible for the civil society engagement component of the conference). > The focus was originally to be Foreign Secretary Haguge's 7 principles on > cybersecurity, mentioned at the Munich security conference. Alexander > thinks this is going to be particulary interesting as one or even two of > Hague's principles were directly related to freedom of access to the > Internet, which was clearly interpreted differently in the aftermath of the > England riots (much to Russia's and China's glee). In any case, the > expectations at the moment are not very high. > > Alexander says he has a lot of regard for the discussion on this forum, > and if there is interest on this thread he could write a very short report > on the conference, albeit from a "national cybersecurity" point of view. He > does say, however, not to expect too much - both from the conference itself > as well as his report - there might not be very much worthwhile to report > on. > > Best regards from Vienna, > > Philipp > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: So 30.10.2011 17:46 > An: IGC > Betreff: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] > Cyber Security 2011 > > > I apologize for sending out the wrong link at first. > > I had heard about the Chatham House event sitting in a conference meeting, > was horrified and without having the correct information wanted to make a > wider group of people aware - since the time is so short. And what I did > was confused things. > > but at least the issue is now on the table. And fortunately there were > people to correct it. > > Thanks to Wolfgang and Ben for correcting my erroneous sky is falling > message. I still think it may be falling, but not from the direction I was > pointing. > > So, is there any official information on this event other than the > Register articles? Is anyone on this list participating who can give more > information? > It does appear that they are doing a pretty good job of keeping this thing > secret. Why is that? > > avri > > Ps. > > One useful piece of info in the Register article: > > > The event will be held on 1 and 2 November, watch out for The > > Register's foray into live-tweeting from the conference floor by > > following c. ® > > We should be ready to comment on the info that comes out of this event. > Quickly and loudly. > > On 30 Oct 2011, at 09:14, Rui Correia wrote: > > > Yes, Ben is right on the need to set the two apart. It would be useful > for those commenting to state which event they are referring to. > > > > The link sent by Wolfgang is for an event co-sponsored by Chatham House, > which has done great work in human rights, exposing corruption, etc etc. I > would find it odd to see them involved in an event in collusion with > governments/ business to shut out CS. > > > > Rui > > > > > > On 30 October 2011 15:01, Ben Wagner wrote: > > To clarify the difference, there is a difference between the two events. > The first link by Avri isn't the offical conference, it's the > inter-governmental event on Nov. 1-2 CS should be concerned about. > > > > To provide a little more context to the event: > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/26/cyber_hague_event/ > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/20/bring_economics_into_freedom_d > > ebate/ > > > > From everything I have heard so far this will be a very high level event > attempting to focus the debate on cyber security at the expense of most > other internet governance issues. > > > > Ben > > > > > > > > On 30 October 2011 11:21, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > This event sounds very much like a trade show on security, with a major > sponsor Endace, a New Zealand company looking for worldwide expansion. > Somehow, advertising the event smacks of show business, one day > boondoggling in London for £995 + VAT registration. Are the good times > coming back ? > > - - - > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:35, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > This monstrosity was pointed out to me the other day. > > > > http://www.cybersecuritysummit.co.uk/ > > > > As far as i can tell it is another conference on IG without Civil > society representation, though a fair amount of business - the business > especially who make a great part of their living from selling the tools of > so called security. > > > > Have I missed the discussion of this on this list? > > > > avri > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > _________________________ > > Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 Número de Telemóvel na > > Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 > > > > I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South > > African numbers Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em > > contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos > > > > Rui Correia > > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison > > Consultant > > > > _______________ > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Mon Oct 31 10:52:14 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:52:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] before lunch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Izumi, Great inputs so far! The new chair is a very focus person and I believe he will drive the seat properly. Happy interactions ahead after lunch. Warm regards. Sonigitu Ekpe *Project Support Officer[Agriculturist]* Cross River Farm Credit Scheme Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources 3 Barracks Road P.M.B. 1119 Calabar - Cross River State, Nigeria. Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 Skype: sonigitu.asibong.ekpe.aji *"LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" * On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > After the Coffee brake, the CSTD WG agreed on the following points - > > Categories of Issues to discuss by the WG agreed: > > A) Shaping the Outcomes of IGF meetings > B) Working modalities including open consultation, MAG and Secretariat > C) Funding of the IGF > D) Participation – broadening > E) Linking IGF to other related processes/mechanisms/bodies > > The new Chair is very committed to reach concrete result, and thus > gaining good support and trust from WG members all acrross. > So far so good. > > Now we are at lunch. > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Mon Oct 31 11:15:20 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:15:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] before lunch Message-ID: <1320074120.13568.yint-ygo-j2me@web161013.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear Izumi Would you please share further activies and discussion. Thanks Imran Ahmed Shah >On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:28 PKT Izumi AIZU wrote:>After the Coffee brake, the CSTD WG agreed on the following points ->>Categories of Issues to discuss by the WG agreed:>>A) Shaping the Outcomes of IGF meetings>B) Working modalities including open consultation, MAG and Secretariat>C) Funding of the IGF>D) Participation – broadening>E) Linking IGF to other related processes/mechanisms/bodies>>The new Chair is very committed to reach concrete result, and thus>gaining good support and trust from WG members all acrross.>So far so good.>>Now we are at lunch.>>izumi>____________________________________________________________>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:> governance at lists.cpsr.org>To be removed from the list, visit:> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>For all other list information and functions, see:> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Oct 31 11:26:03 2011 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:56:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] G77 + China Statement at UN General Assembly Message-ID: <4EAEBE0B.3080607@cis-india.org> Dear all, This other statement would also be of interest to those on this list. It is informative to look at the similarities and differences between this, the earlier 'voluntary code of conduct' statement, and the Indian statement. Main highlights: > It also highlighted that the Internet governance-related outcomes of the Summit (WSIS), namely the process towards enhanced cooperation and the convening of the Internet Governance Forum, are to be pursued by the Secretary-General through two distinct processes, which may be complementary. and > 9. We would like to remind that policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. In this regard, on the process of "enhanced cooperation", the G77 and China takes note of the consultations convened by the Secretary-General, including the meeting held in New York in December 2010 and invites the Secretary-General to hold further open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States, especially developing countries, and other stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities, as stated in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. and perhaps also: > In this regard, the Group attaches great importance to the Internet Governance Forum, which through its multi-stakeholder nature, has proven to be very useful in providing a framework for an open dialogue on public policy issues related to the Internet among all concerned parties. Regards, Pranesh STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GROUP OF 77 AND CHINA BY NATALIA HANDRUJOVICZ, THIRD SECRETARY, PERMANENT MISSION OF ARGENTINA TO THE UNITED NATIONS, ON AGENDA ITEM 16: INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR DEVELOPMENT, AT THE SECOND COMMITTEE OF THE 66TH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (New York, 26 October 2011) Mr. Chairman, 1. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Group of 77 and China on agenda item 16 entitled "Information and communication technologies for development". 2. In the world of today, information and communication technologies are vital to developing countries' full participation in the global economy and to harness the benefits of globalization. They hold tremendous potential not only for eradication of poverty and promotion of socio-economic development, but also for bridging the technological gap between developing and developed countries. ICTs have a prominent role in promoting inclusive growth and development. 3. Although significant advances and explosive growth in new technologies have been made in recent years, for the majority of the poor the developmental promise of science and technology, including information and communication technologies, remains unfulfilled. Creating links between knowledge generation and development is one of the greatest challenges facing the developing countries. 4. Furthermore, the G77 and China expresses concern about the growing gap in broadband provision between developed and developing countries, as well as about the new dimensions that the digital divide has taken on, with respect to the quality of available access, and what it can offer to users. In this regard, we believe that more efforts need to be exerted towards bridging the gap between developed and developing countries in Internet access and broadband connectivity. Mr. Chairman, 5. The World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) was held to address the challenge of the digital divide facing developing countries. The G77 and China remains hopeful that the full and effective implementation of both the Geneva and Tunis phases of the Summit will deliver the desired results to developing countries from ICTs, in support of the MDGs. 6. The Summit (WSIS) recognized, in paragraph 68 of the Tunis Agenda, that "all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet". It also highlighted that the Internet governance-related outcomes of the Summit (WSIS), namely the process towards enhanced cooperation and the convening of the Internet Governance Forum, are to be pursued by the Secretary-General through two distinct processes, which may be complementary. 7. In this regard, the Group attaches great importance to the Internet Governance Forum, which through its multi-stakeholder nature, has proven to be very useful in providing a framework for an open dialogue on public policy issues related to the Internet among all concerned parties. The G77 and China also underlines the importance of the need to improve the Forum in accordance with General Assembly resolution 65/141. We also support the Secretary-General to continue to play facilitating role to promote consultations among Governments and all stakeholders in Internet-related public policy matters. 8. In this context, the Group notes the report of the Chair of the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. Moreover, we would like to stress the decision of the ECOSOC, in paragraph 28 of its resolution 2011/6, to extend the mandate of the Working Group until the fifteenth session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development in order to complete its task in accordance with its mandate, and urges the Working Group to submit its recommendations to the Commission at its fifteenth session, which shall constitute an input from the Commission to the General Assembly, through the ECOSOC. 9. We would like to remind that policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. In this regard, on the process of "enhanced cooperation", the G77 and China takes note of the consultations convened by the Secretary-General, including the meeting held in New York in December 2010 and invites the Secretary-General to hold further open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States, especially developing countries, and other stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities, as stated in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. Mr. Chairman, 10. We acknowledge that ICTs are a powerful tool for socio-economic development. It can offer many opportunities to the disadvantaged sectors of society, by enabling them to enjoy the benefit of economic growth and development through enhanced connectivity. Moreover, proper use of ICTs can help in the achieving of the internationally agreed development goals, including the MDGs. Greater emphasis is therefore needed on transfer of such technologies to developing countries, as well as the development and dissemination of such technologies within developing countries. We welcome the ongoing work by ITU, UNIDO, UNESCO, UNCTAD and other UN agencies and regional commissions in bridging the digital divide, and promote the use of ICTs as means to enhance productivity and improve the quality of life. We also urge the UN System to focus on monitoring progress and follow-up in transfer of technology to facilitate a development-oriented information society. 11. In conclusion, we are convinced that the large gaps that remain in access to and affordability of ICTs must be closed. There is a need to upgrade the quality and quantity of existing telecommunication infrastructure in developing countries. It is the view of the Group that for developing countries to be able to benefit from information and communication technologies a greater emphasis should be placed on reducing the cost of such technologies, including the cost of broadband connections, and on capacity-building for greater use and application in the developing world. I thank you Mr. Chairman. -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 262 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mueller at syr.edu Mon Oct 31 11:57:48 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:57:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202D49C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > These reports were on the BBC this morning, in case they are any help. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12371056 William Hague: UK is under cyber-attack Typical of the distorted dialogue around this issue, this article screams "UK is under cyberattack!!!" and when you read the details you see a bunch of uncoordinated routine problems, such as viruses embedded in attachments, and some espionage probes, many of which were successfully blocked. And then we have the mother of all nonsequiturs: "Mr Hague said these kinds of cyber-threats called for a "global response", with like-minded countries agreeing standards of behaviour on the internet." So, to translate this into meatspace terms, the fact that there were and probably still are Russian, Israeli, Syrian (and maybe even a few American) spies in the UK required a "global response" too. And of course govts will pass high-sounding resolutions not to do that, and of course they will continue to do it if they can get useful intelligence from it and get away with it. My problem with all this is that whenever UK and US govts start talking cybersecurity it is their own citizens' freedom and privacy they start chipping away at, not those of other govts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Oct 31 12:00:36 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:00:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] India proposes UN "takeover" of Internet In-Reply-To: <4EADF53F.2060305@ciroap.org> References: <20111028054943.GA25885@vortex.com>,<398B63AC-5F04-4EFD-AC7F-49A3805E5BCB@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034509@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4EAAB6F3.3010002@cis-india.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CA4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4EACF94A.4050307@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202CDD1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4EADF53F.2060305@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202D4C0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Well, I was asking for a specific example of an Internet governance policy that got better from a CS point of view as more governments got involved. And I don't see one. From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] [Milton L Mueller] >First, give me an example of what specific policies would be better if the UN were involved and the number of states were broadened. Just one would do. There is a whole literature full of examples. Internet governance as a field of study in international relations is based around regime theory. It is fundamental to this theory that states will come together and cooperate in a regime even where this does not always coincide directly with their domestic interests. The existence of the regime itself has a value which counterbalances domestic considerations. I won't go into the theory here because you probably know it better than me, and as far as the specific examples you've asked for I can only speculate, but don't consider it implausible that if a new instrument were agreed that outlawed state-sponsored cyberterrorism, this would influence domestic policy on its use amongst member states - just as the Chemical Weapons Convention has done. Let me be frank. I don't like the CIRP proposal as it exists now. It has major problems. One of those you've raised yourself, that governments are represented twice - once on their own account, and again through the intergovernmental advisory group. We would need to do a lot to get this proposal into shape. Ideally, I think we should be asking that each of the advisory groups should have a veto of any recommendation that goes forward. (In a way, this is a variation of the consociational model that I advocated in my doctorate and since.) This will narrow the range of issues on which the CIRP can produce recommendations, but it will also avoid the worst dangers of this new body producing a rights-infringing document on Internet security or the like. [Milton L Mueller] That would indeed be an improvement. Good luck with getting that out of the Indian, Brazilian or SA states, much less the g77 as a whole. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 12:00:35 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:00:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Reconciling Democracy & Multistakeholderism: Having a Voice vs. Having a Vote Message-ID: It seems that in the longstanding debates about the merits and demerits of multi-stakeholderism, there is a perspective that may possibly help reconcile the views of some major positions on this issue, or perhaps even reconcile all of them: The question perhaps ought to be framed in terms of having a voice versus having a vote. Under human rights and democracy laws, only human beings (or their elected representatives) have votes. But businesses, NGOs, and others often have relevant if not important expertise, and thus have relevant if not important "voices" that are either useful or even necessary to intelligent process, and thus to good outcomes. Garbage in, garbage out. For good process, we need good "voices" or good information. One big source of this good information are all the folks we think of as invitees or participants in a "multi-stakeholder" process. The issues arise when the voices are also the only votes or the main votes. This confuses good, democratic process of furthering the important cause of an INFORMED decision-making electorate or process, with the issue of WHO HAS A VOTE. Under democracy and fundamental humans rights laws, only human beings have votes, and it is one a one person/one vote basis. For the moment, let's put aside the issue of building robust electoral systems on a global scale allowing all the humans to vote who are interested in doing so and effected by what's proposed (i.e. "the governed.") There may be challenges there to be sure, but if this is considered a worthy objection ultimately, then it is a worthy objection for a dictator to object to democracy because polling places, precincts, ballots and other infrastructure simply does not exist. That's a bad joke, or an excuse for authoritarianism, not a valid objection to working towards and implementing democracy. The call of freedom and democracy movements worldwide has nearly always been essentially the same thing: let's make democracy REAL. And then we will eternally have to keep it real, of course. We ought to have multi-stakeholderism in terms of Voice Process, but not in terms of Vote Process. It's very important to hear all the different perspectives including business perspectives (Multi-stakeholderism), but that should not translate into non-elected OR non-human persons or entities voting and determining the laws and policies that structure and define the freedom of the internet (or the necessary protections against fraud and abuse). Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Oct 31 12:05:39 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 01:05:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG going on Message-ID: In the afternoon, we started to examine if there is broad (and minimum) agreement on each of the 5 topic categories identified in the morning: A) Shaping the outcomes of IGF meetings B) Working modalities including open consultation, MAG and Secretariat C) Funding of the IGF D) Participation – broadening E) Linking IGF to other related processes/mechanisms/bodies And then we reached the point of confusion – it seems very difficult to reach some specific agreement or consensus of so many different issues in limited time – so that Chair suggested to go into three small working groups and come back to plenary. Several governments showed resistance to this proposal and we went back to exploring how to go forward as plenary. Some governments started to talk about more specifics of item A, and then Marilia pointed out that we should go over all 5 elements first without going into subetantive discussions, and we can go more specifics later. That was accepted by the group. Then we agreed (tentatively): “B Working modalities including open consultation MAG, and Secretariat Broad agreement on need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG deliberations transparent. Broad agreement to strengthen the IGF secretariat” Broad agreement that the MAG should be more representative of all the groups that Internet Governance increasingly impacts. Broad agreement that the use of remote participation tools and resources should be strengthened. Broad agreement that MAG needs clear Terms of Reference, constitution of the MAG is done in a transparent and documented fashion. C Funding of the IGF Broad agreement that additional voluntary funding should be sought, accepted, and encouraged. Broad agreement that funding is stable and predictable and independent. We have had several rounds of interesting exchanges of different views before reaching these broad agreement. Another Coffee break now. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 12:11:55 2011 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:11:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202D49C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202D49C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: And haven't you noticed that it is absolutely de rigueur for a country to be under cyber-attack, as it used to be essential for cocktail party conversation, if one were the right age and gender of course, to have had a hysterectomy? Deirdre On 31 October 2011 11:57, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > These reports were on the BBC this morning, in case they are any help.* > *** > > >** ** > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12371056 William Hague: UK is under > cyber-attack**** > > ** ** > > Typical of the distorted dialogue around this issue, this article screams > “UK is under cyberattack!!!” and when you read the details you see a bunch > of uncoordinated routine problems, such as viruses embedded in attachments, > and some espionage probes, many of which were successfully blocked. And > then we have the mother of all nonsequiturs: “Mr Hague said these kinds of > cyber-threats called for a "global response", with like-minded countries > agreeing standards of behaviour on the internet.” So, to translate this > into meatspace terms, the fact that there were and probably still are > Russian, Israeli, Syrian (and maybe even a few American) spies in the UK > required a “global response” too. And of course govts will pass > high—sounding resolutions not to do that, and of course they will continue > to do it if they can get useful intelligence from it and get away with it. > My problem with all this is that whenever UK and US govts start talking > cybersecurity it is their own citizens’ freedom and privacy they start > chipping away at, not those of other govts. > **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Oct 31 12:31:54 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:31:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1115D927-9D4E-4A8D-9B1F-EBC504428956@acm.org> On 31 Oct 2011, at 06:31, Deirdre Williams wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15355739 UK seeks 'consensus' at cyberspace conference and earlier message asked: > On 30 Oct 2011, at 14:59, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> I'm unclear what people are alarmed about; > Me personally? It is that Governments at a ministerial level reach a consensus, without proper multistakeholder participation and then work to cram it down the collective throats of the world. I fear that such a consensus would be at the expense of the freedoms most of us hold dear, but that governments often find troublesome when trying to control their populations. And I feat that in any follow-up, Civil Society would find itself fighting against the tide - agreeable to the Business community because it spurs the sale of further hardware and software systems, but deleterious to the public good. That is what alarms me. avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Oct 31 12:33:41 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:33:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tbilissi Declaration References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202D49C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C6AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.osce.org/fom/84371 Here is another Internet Governance Declaration 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 Mon Oct 31 12:59:15 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 01:59:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG Day 1 - last session Message-ID: After coffee break, we quickly reached the following consensus. All seem to be tired, but also this D and E are non-controversial compared with previous issues. D Participation – broadening Broad agreement that the preparatory process need to be made more visible and for more stakeholders to participate in it Broad agreement on need to reach out to new stakeholders Broad agreement on need to enhance remote participation Broad agreement to increase and support participation of developing countries in IGF and its preparatory process, Increase Internet Governance for development (IG4D) topics in IGF Continue to rotate location of IGF annually, to enable different regions to have easy access to IGF E Linking IGF to other related processes/mechanisms/bodies Broad agreement on need to encourage greater links between national, regional, and global IGF Broad agreement on need to encourage greater links between IGF and intergovernmental organizations and international organizations The Chair asked us to study 20-page document of the Chair, and link them to the five major topics we agreed today. The Chair also indicated that we will have another meeting in January. But he indicated there is no intention to host the third meeting unless really necessary. We adjourned at 6 pm, as scheduled. For your reference, I attach the Chair's summary presentation this morning titled as "IGF 2.0, Reflections on the tasks of the CSTD Working Group" izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF 2.0 tasks.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 68368 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ias_pk at yahoo.com Mon Oct 31 13:15:40 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:15:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] CSTD WG going on Message-ID: <1320081340.82295.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear Izumi, Thank you for sharing the progress, Step by step. Its really a positive change and constructive discussion about IGF improvement. May I suggest some points for the discussion over there (if you also agree): 1. Travel Support to attend IGF meetings for the Internet Community from Developing Economies through open application program like the ICANN have Fellowship Application System. 2. Open and Online Discussion Forum at IGF Website like the DiploInternetGovernance have. 3. Increase the number of the membership (count) of MAG Members to have at least two members from each Country, one from CS and one from Internet Regulating Authority from the same Country. 4. Regarding IGF meeting outcomes, and the strengthen IGF secretariat, it is suggested that each IGF meeting specially and IGF secretariat in general, should release a declaration and report about the Internet Regulating Authorities if they adopt such policies that conflicting Internet Governance. Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah >On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:05 PKT Izumi AIZU wrote:>In the afternoon, we started to examine if there is broad (and>minimum) agreement on each of>the 5 topic categories identified in the morning:>>A) Shaping the outcomes of IGF meetings>B) Working modalities including open consultation, MAG and Secretariat>C) Funding of the IGF>D) Participation – broadening>E) Linking IGF to other related processes/mechanisms/bodies>>And then we reached the point of confusion – it seems very difficult>to reach some specific>agreement or consensus of so many different issues in limited time –>so that Chair suggested>to go into three small working groups and come back to plenary.>>Several governments showed resistance to this proposal and we went back to>exploring how to go forward as plenary.>>Some governments started to talk about more specifics of item A, and>then Marilia>pointed out that we should go over all 5 elements first without going>into subetantive>discussions, and we can go more specifics later. That was accepted by the group.>>Then we agreed (tentatively):>“B Working modalities including open consultation MAG, and Secretariat>Broad agreement on need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG>deliberations transparent.>Broad agreement to strengthen the IGF secretariat”>Broad agreement that the MAG should be more representative of all the>groups that Internet Governance increasingly impacts.>Broad agreement that the use of remote participation tools and>resources should be strengthened.>Broad agreement that MAG needs clear Terms of Reference, constitution>of the MAG is done in a transparent and documented fashion.>>C Funding of the IGF>Broad agreement that additional voluntary funding should be sought,>accepted, and encouraged.>Broad agreement that funding is stable and predictable and independent.>>We have had several rounds of interesting exchanges of different views>before reaching these broad agreement.>>Another Coffee break now.>>izumi>____________________________________________________________>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:> governance at lists.cpsr.org>To be removed from the list, visit:> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>For all other list information and functions, see:> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Mon Oct 31 14:33:16 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:33:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reconciling Democracy & Multistakeholderism: Having a Voice vs. Having a Vote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Paul! Quite a beautiful peace of well articulated inputs. The choice lies in the truth. Sea On 31 Oct 2011 17:02, "Paul Lehto" wrote: It seems that in the longstanding debates about the merits and demerits of multi-stakeholderism, there is a perspective that may possibly help reconcile the views of some major positions on this issue, or perhaps even reconcile all of them: The question perhaps ought to be framed in terms of having a voice versus having a vote. Under human rights and democracy laws, only human beings (or their elected representatives) have votes. But businesses, NGOs, and others often have relevant if not important expertise, and thus have relevant if not important "voices" that are either useful or even necessary to intelligent process, and thus to good outcomes. Garbage in, garbage out. For good process, we need good "voices" or good information. One big source of this good information are all the folks we think of as invitees or participants in a "multi-stakeholder" process. The issues arise when the voices are also the only votes or the main votes. This confuses good, democratic process of furthering the important cause of an INFORMED decision-making electorate or process, with the issue of WHO HAS A VOTE. Under democracy and fundamental humans rights laws, only human beings have votes, and it is one a one person/one vote basis. For the moment, let's put aside the issue of building robust electoral systems on a global scale allowing all the humans to vote who are interested in doing so and effected by what's proposed (i.e. "the governed.") There may be challenges there to be sure, but if this is considered a worthy objection ultimately, then it is a worthy objection for a dictator to object to democracy because polling places, precincts, ballots and other infrastructure simply does not exist. That's a bad joke, or an excuse for authoritarianism, not a valid objection to working towards and implementing democracy. The call of freedom and democracy movements worldwide has nearly always been essentially the same thing: let's make democracy REAL. And then we will eternally have to keep it real, of course. We ought to have multi-stakeholderism in terms of Voice Process, but not in terms of Vote Process. It's very important to hear all the different perspectives including business perspectives (Multi-stakeholderism), but that should not translate into non-elected OR non-human persons or entities voting and determining the laws and policies that structure and define the freedom of the internet (or the necessary protections against fraud and abuse). Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Oct 31 15:20:57 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:20:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: <1115D927-9D4E-4A8D-9B1F-EBC504428956@acm.org> References: ,<1115D927-9D4E-4A8D-9B1F-EBC504428956@acm.org> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034DA0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Avri, I am missing how a meeting with a bunch of speeches, including one British minister with a pre-existing talking points agenda (William Hague), gets to point of multiple governments reaching consensus. Last week the German and French government didn't even want the British PM in the same room with them as they struggled to save the Euro; and now we worry (with all due respect) that William Hague will set the global agenda for cybersecurity? Doubt it. Stranger things have happened I admit, but as our on-site reporter hinted, odds of a major advance given the structure of the meeting seems - very low. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:31 PM To: IGC Subject: RE: [governance] November 1-2 Ministerial Cyber Event was Re: [] Cyber Security 2011 On 31 Oct 2011, at 06:31, Deirdre Williams wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15355739 UK seeks 'consensus' at cyberspace conference and earlier message asked: > On 30 Oct 2011, at 14:59, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> I'm unclear what people are alarmed about; > Me personally? It is that Governments at a ministerial level reach a consensus, without proper multistakeholder participation and then work to cram it down the collective throats of the world. I fear that such a consensus would be at the expense of the freedoms most of us hold dear, but that governments often find troublesome when trying to control their populations. And I feat that in any follow-up, Civil Society would find itself fighting against the tide - agreeable to the Business community because it spurs the sale of further hardware and software systems, but deleterious to the public good. That is what alarms me. avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Mon Oct 31 15:32:42 2011 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:32:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG going on In-Reply-To: <1320081340.82295.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1320081340.82295.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 18:15, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Dear Izumi, . . May I suggest some points for the discussion over there (if you also agree): > > 1. Travel Support to attend IGF meetings for the Internet Community from > Developing Economies through open application program like the ICANN have > Fellowship Application System. > - - - This topic has been a recurring tune since early WSIS prepcom meetings 10 years ago. Here is a document specifically focusing on it. http://www.eurolinc.eu/spip.php?article72 It was part of a contribution to the CSTD WG on improving IGF, mailed to the previous chair Frédéric Riehl, on Mar 14, 2011. French and Spanish versions are also available on request. Good luck -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Oct 31 15:34:03 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:34:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG going on In-Reply-To: <1320081340.82295.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1320081340.82295.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message <1320081340.82295.yint-ygo-j2me at web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>, at 10:15:40 on Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Imran Ahmed Shah writes >May I suggest some points for the discussion over there (if you also agree): >1. Travel Support to attend IGF meetings for the Internet Community from >Developing Economies through open application program like the ICANN have >Fellowship Application System. Roughly how many of these? (As a benchmark ICANN supported nineteen at Dakar, that's approximately one from every ten countries). >3. Increase the number of the membership (count) of MAG Members to have >at least two members from each Country, one from CS and one from Internet >Regulating Authority from the same Country. That makes the MAG begin to sound like an ITU summit with perhaps 400 attendees. That's a rather different animal from the current one. And who will pay for all that travel? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 15:46:48 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:46:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG going on In-Reply-To: References: <1320081340.82295.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <1320081340.82295.yint-ygo-j2me at web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>, at > 10:15:40 on Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Imran Ahmed Shah writes >> >> May I suggest some points for the discussion over there (if you also >> agree): >> 1. Travel Support to attend IGF meetings for the Internet Community from >> Developing Economies through open application program like the ICANN have >> Fellowship Application System. > > Roughly how many of these? (As a benchmark ICANN supported nineteen at > Dakar, that's approximately one from every ten countries). > >> 3. Increase the number of the membership (count) of MAG Members to have >> at least two members from each Country, one from CS and one from Internet >> Regulating Authority from the same Country. > > That makes the MAG begin to sound like an ITU summit with perhaps 400 > attendees. That's a rather different animal from the current one. exactly, and ~half of them would be regulators?? How is that balanced? -- 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 Oct 31 16:31:39 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:31:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: ALERT: SEC Issues Cybersecurity Disclosure Guidance -- ATTORNEY ADVERTISING In-Reply-To: <2646FE4F37C14A9AA3BB68CAD03B908A@euw0002183> References: <2646FE4F37C14A9AA3BB68CAD03B908A@euw0002183> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B034FA8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Some cybersecurity news maybe you can use...courtesy of SEC and Wilmer Hale. Lee Defense, National Security and Government Contracts Alert October 27, 2011 WilmerHale SEC Issues New Guidance on Disclosing Cybersecurity Risks and Incidents On October 13, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance issued guidance on disclosure obligations relating to cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents.1 The guidance, which is effective immediately, applies to domestic and non-US SEC registrants. It is intended to assist registrants in preparing disclosures under both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.2 At the outset, the guidance explains that cyber incidents can occur when a company experiences an unintentional loss of data or a deliberate attack on its computer networks, and cautions that incidents can result in the loss of sensitive data, the corruption of important files, or even the disruption of company operations. The guidance notes several types of negative consequences public companies may confront in the wake of a cyber incident, including remediation costs, costs of increased cybersecurity protection measures, lost revenues, litigation costs, and reputational damage. The guidance then explains that even though no rules explicitly address this topic, cyber incidents and the risk of such incidents may nevertheless give rise to disclosure obligations under current SEC rules. In light of the damage that a cyber incident can cause as well as existing obligations to disclose information that a "reasonable investor would consider important to an investment decision," registrants may be required to provide information that allows investors to understand the nature of a company's particular cybersecurity risks. Moreover, registrants may also need to disclose material information regarding specific cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents when such information is necessary to "make other required disclosures, in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading." Finally, the guidance outlines several particular areas where existing disclosure obligations may require companies to discuss cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents. Each area is described below: Investment Risk Factors The SEC guidance recommends that companies disclose cybersecurity risks and incidents as "risk factors" if such risks and incidents are "among the most significant factors" that make an investment in the company speculative or risky. Companies should take into account prior incidents, the severity and frequency of the incidents, the probability of future incidents, and potential costs or consequences. Costs of relevant preventative measures should be included in this analysis as well. The SEC also notes that disclosures must be made in terms specific to the particular registrant, rather than in generic language. It provides the following examples of what an appropriate disclosure may include: * "Discussion of aspects of the registrant's business or operations that give rise to material cybersecurity risks and the potential costs and consequences; * "To the extent the registrant outsources functions that have material cybersecurity risks, description of those functions and how the registrant addresses those risks; * "Description of cyber incidents experienced by the registrant that are individually, or in the aggregate, material, including a description of the costs and other consequences; * "Risks related to cyber incidents that may remain undetected for an extended period; and * "Description of relevant insurance coverage." Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A) Regarding MD&A disclosures, the guidance recommends that registrants disclose cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents if costs or consequences associated with "one or more known incidents or the risk of potential incidents" would materially affect operational results, liquidity, financial condition, or would cause financial information not to be necessarily indicative of future operating results. For example, an attack that resulted in the theft of intellectual property might lead to reduced revenues, increased costs of litigation, or increased cybersecurity protection expenditures. The amount and duration of those costs should be included if material. Description of Business If a cyber incident affects a registrant's products, services, competitive conditions, or relationships with customers or suppliers, the guidance counsels registrants to disclose those incidents and any potentially material impact on the company. Description of Legal Proceedings If a material legal proceeding pertains to a cyber incident, such as material litigation arising from the loss of important customer information, the registrant is expected to explain the cyber incident and the associated claims allegedly arising from the incident as part of the "legal proceedings" section in its disclosure. Financial Statement Disclosures The SEC recommends that registrants consider how cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents would affect financial statement disclosures under relevant accounting standards, both prior to an incident as well as during and after an incident. Prior to a cyber incident, registrants should consider accounting for the capitalization of costs incurred to prevent cyber incidents. During and after an incident, registrants should consider accounting for any incentives the company has offered to maintain business relationships with customers following the incident, and for contingent losses from asserted and unasserted claims against the company. The SEC notes that cyber incidents might result in diminished future cash flows, thereby requiring consideration of impairment of certain assets. The SEC notes that this may require the use of estimates. The SEC reminds its registrants that they must reassess the estimates periodically and advises companies to explain any risk or uncertainty of a reasonably possible change in estimates that would be material to the financial statements. Similarly, companies should also state whether potential changes in the estimates would be material to the financial statements. If a cyber incident occurs after the balance sheet date but before the issuance of financial statements, the SEC recommends that registrants evaluate whether to include disclosure of a recognized or unrecognized subsequent event in addition to any information related to such a disclosure. Disclosure Controls and Procedures Finally, the SEC guidance advises registrants to consider whether the cybersecurity risk or cyber incident might affect disclosures relating to disclosure controls and procedures themselves, such as if the incident affects the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize, and report any information required in any of its filings. Conclusion The SEC's guidance highlights the importance of cybersecurity not only as an issue for companies and their customers, but also for investors and the economy as a whole. Senator Rockefeller, pleased about the SEC's response to his earlier request, said the guidance "fundamentally changes the way companies will address cybersecurity in the 21st century."3 Companies should evaluate their current cybersecurity-related disclosure practices to ensure these practices are consistent with the new guidance. 1 Securities and Exchange Commission, CF Disclosure Guidance, Topic No. 2: Cybersecurity (Oct. 13, 2011), www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/cfguidance-topic2.htm. 2 In May 2011, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and four other Senators sent a letter to the SEC asking the Commission to clarify corporate disclosure requirements for cybersecurity-related incidents, quoting statistics from a 2009 survey concluding that 38 percent of Fortune 500 companies had made a significant oversight in their public filings by not discussing privacy and data security events. Letter from Sen. Jay Rockefeller and others to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro (May 11, 2011), commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=4ceb6c11-b613-4e21-92c7-a8e1dd5a707e. 3 Rockefeller Says SEC Guidance Fundamentally Changes the Future of Cybersecurity (Oct. 13, 2011), commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4acbf0d1-7695-4fd8-be64-b950da8f1372. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS OR OTHER DEFENSE, NATIONAL SECURITY AND GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS MATTERS, CONTACT: Benjamin A. Powell +1 202 663 6770 benjamin.powell at wilmerhale.com Jonathan G. Cedarbaum +1 202 663 6315 jonathan.cedarbaum at wilmerhale.com Jason C. Chipman +1 202 663 6195 jason.chipman at wilmerhale.com Larkin Reynolds +1 202 663 6946 larkin.reynolds at wilmerhale.com ________________________________________ From: WilmerHale Client Alerts [TL-ZZ58j71V007287VIXWg1 at wilmerhaleupdates.com] Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 1:36 PM To: Lee W McKnight Subject: ALERT: SEC Issues Cybersecurity Disclosure Guidance -- ATTORNEY ADVERTISING You have received a message from WilmerHale Client Alerts at WilmerHale. To view your message, please visit: http://wilmerhaleupdates.com/ve/ZZ58j71V007287VIXWg1 To unsubscribe, reply to this email and change the subject to be: unsubscribe If you have trouble viewing this message please see below for detailed instructions. ________________________________________ If your e-mail program does not allow you to click directly on the above address (such as AOL), you will need to copy and paste the address into your World Wide Web browser (eg Netscape Navigator or Internet Explorer). Follow the directions below for the simplest way to pick up your message. 1. Make sure you only have one web browser open. 2. Highlight the address by dragging the cursor across the URL (make sure you get the whole address). 3. Copy and paste the URL into your web browser. 4. Press 'enter'. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 at nwagner.org Mon Oct 31 17:09:16 2011 From: b at nwagner.org (Ben Wagner) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:09:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cyber Security 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD202D49C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <67D3B9FD-B00D-4415-8D21-5E2F98FBD80C@nwagner.org> To add to the absurdity of the statement: The UK is trying to reach a consensus on cyber security while also one of the leading countries exporting technology that make both internet and mobile communications less secure, as was most recently documented in Iran: www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-31/iranian-police-seizing-dissidents-get-aid-of-western-companies.html Following on from Milton's last statement, it's not just the freedom of their own citizens that the UK/US are chipping away at. It's the rest of the worlds as well... Ben On 31 Oct 2011, at 17:11, Deirdre Williams wrote: > And haven't you noticed that it is absolutely de rigueur for a country to be under cyber-attack, as it used to be essential for cocktail party conversation, if one were the right age and gender of course, to have had a hysterectomy? > Deirdre > > > On 31 October 2011 11:57, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > These reports were on the BBC this morning, in case they are any help. > > > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12371056 William Hague: UK is under cyber-attack > > > > Typical of the distorted dialogue around this issue, this article screams “UK is under cyberattack!!!” and when you read the details you see a bunch of uncoordinated routine problems, such as viruses embedded in attachments, and some espionage probes, many of which were successfully blocked. And then we have the mother of all nonsequiturs: “Mr Hague said these kinds of cyber-threats called for a "global response", with like-minded countries agreeing standards of behaviour on the internet.” So, to translate this into meatspace terms, the fact that there were and probably still are Russian, Israeli, Syrian (and maybe even a few American) spies in the UK required a “global response” too. And of course govts will pass high—sounding resolutions not to do that, and of course they will continue to do it if they can get useful intelligence from it and get away with it. My problem with all this is that whenever UK and US govts start talking cybersecurity it is their own citizens’ freedom and privacy they start chipping away at, not those of other govts. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t